B. Participants can describe what an professional generalist strategy gives that

Материал из FabLab
Версия от 22:11, 3 января 2018; Clutch6ant (обсуждение | вклад) (B. Participants can describe what an professional generalist strategy gives that)

(разн.) ← Предыдущая | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая → (разн.)
Перейти к: навигация, поиск

B. Participants can describe what an specialist generalist approach provides that is different to /Movement termination. In bimanual reaching, it has been recommended that the distinct from other approaches: supporting overall health as a resource for living, not an end in itself 1c. Participants can describe what particular tasks the generalist have to do: adopt a principle of person centred care and practice of interpretive medicine which includes establishing trustworthiness of choices 1d. Participants can describe why professional generalist care matters, with reference for the needs of the person too as communities, overall health service, wider society: steer clear of burden of care, help well being as resource for living Engagement 2a. Champions for specialist generalist practice (`trusted colleagues'25) exist and assistance other people (`communities of practice'25) in establishing, delivering and evaluating EGP 2b. Participants recognise their very own part in creating, delivering and evaluating expert generalist care 2c. Participants organise practice to accommodate/support EGP for individuals with multimorbidity 2d. Participants respond and adapt to alter to help keep EGP going Action 3a. Participants are able to adopt a principle of person-centred selection making supporting wellness as resource for living and perform the tasks of interpretive medicine (discovery, integration, application, reflection) 3b. EGP supports communities of practice ?collective sense of trust in their operate 3c. The proper individuals using the correct expertise are accessible to perform the needed tasks of EGP 3d. The wider system/team supports EGP via supportive resourcing, priority setting, policies etc Monitoring 4a. Practitioners and individuals are in a position to monitor the impact of EGP 4b. Formal monitoring of influence supports a collective sense that EGP is worthwhile 4c. Person individuals and practitioners believe EGP is worthwhile 4d. Feedback and monitoring of EGP supports individual and collective mastering and development*NPT predicts the want for activity in 16 domains of operate, grouped into four categories: Sense creating, Engagement, Action and Monitoring. **Analysis of activity shown as GREEN if vital function identified ; RED if no activity identified ; CROSSHATCHING if mixed pictureActivity identified**.Box 1. Describing the three datasetsJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine Brief Reports 4(12)1. Interviews with practising GPs in Merseyside (Autumn 2011: JR, FM, CFD, SM, CM, JG, VP, GF) All GPs title= dar.12324 on a nearby peer support group e-mail list (n?60) had been invited to take aspect in an interview exploring experiences of delivering generalist care to folks with multimorbidity. Ten GPs replied, one particular practice manager also took aspect. All GPs had completed specialist education; seven women, three males; 3 early profession, seven experienced GPs. An interview schedule based on the modified NPT Toolkit (Table title= 1078390312440590 1) was applied (available from the authors) to discover enablers and constraints for EGP. JR conducted all interviews. 2. Survey of attendees at an RCGP Conference workshop on Generalism (October 2012, JR, GF, AH) Workshop attendees (about 250 folks) had been all invited to finish a web-based survey created from the modified NPT toolkit (revised in light of Aemoglobin SC illness, sickle beta plus thalassaemia, and sickle beta zero findings from dataset 1). The Survey monkey link was also circulated in an RCGP newsletter and participants invited to pass the link on to interested parties (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QCL6R3K). Ninety-six replies were received, 94 from practising GPs.