↓ Skip to main content

The challenges of training, support and assessment of healthcare support workers: A qualitative study of experiences in three English acute hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The challenges of training, support and assessment of healthcare support workers: A qualitative study of experiences in three English acute hospitals
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.010
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Ever-growing demands on care systems have increased reliance on healthcare support workers. In the UK, their training has been variable, but organisation-wide failures in care have prompted questions about how this crucial section of the workforce should be developed. Their training, support and assessment has become a policy priority. This paper examines: healthcare support workers' access to training, support and assessment; perceived gaps in training provision; and barriers and facilitators to implementation of relevant policies in acute care. We undertook a qualitative study of staff caring for older inpatients at ward, divisional or organisational-level in three acute National Health Service hospitals in England in 2014. 58 staff working with older people (30 healthcare support workers and 24 staff managing or working alongside them) and 4 healthcare support worker training leads. One-to-one semi-structured interviews included: views and experiences of training and support; translation of training into practice; training, support and assessment policies and difficulties of implementing them. Transcripts were analysed to identify themes. Induction training was valued, but did not fully prepare healthcare support workers for the realities of the ward. Implementation of hospital policies concerning supervision and formal assessment of competencies varied between and within hospitals, and was subject to availability of appropriate staff and competing demands on staff time. Gaps identified in training provision included: caring for people with cognitive impairment; managing the emotions of patients, families and themselves; and having difficult conversations. Access to ongoing training was affected by: lack of time; infrequent provision; attitudes of ward managers to additional support workforce training, and their need to balance this against patients' and other staff members' needs; and the use of e-learning as a default mode of training delivery. With the current and unprecedented policy focus on training, support and assessment of healthcare support workers, our study suggests improved training would be welcomed by them and their managers. Provision of training, support and assessment could be improved by organisational policy that promotes and protects healthcare support worker training; formalising the provision and availability of on-ward support; and training and IT support provided on a drop-in basis. Challenges in implementation are likely to be faced in all international settings where there is increased reliance on a support workforce. While recent policies in the UK offers scope to overcome some of these challenges there is a risk that some will be exacerbated.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 307 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Lecturer 14 5%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 138 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 80 26%
Psychology 15 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 3%
Other 25 8%
Unknown 152 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,620,833
of 27,896,334 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#206
of 2,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,519
of 454,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,896,334 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.