英国长期社会护理住宿环境中辅助人员与有学习障碍的成年人之间的护理关系:系统性文献综述

Q2 Health Professions
Georgios Mamolis, P. Triantafyllopoulou, Karen Jones
{"title":"英国长期社会护理住宿环境中辅助人员与有学习障碍的成年人之间的护理关系:系统性文献综述","authors":"Georgios Mamolis, P. Triantafyllopoulou, Karen Jones","doi":"10.31389/jltc.189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications.\nObjectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships.\nMethods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework.\nFindings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy.\nLimitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited.\nImplications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"Georgios Mamolis, P. Triantafyllopoulou, Karen Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/jltc.189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications.\\nObjectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships.\\nMethods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework.\\nFindings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy.\\nLimitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited.\\nImplications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对英国长期社会护理住宿环境中辅助人员(如辅助工作者)与有学习障碍的成年人之间护理关系的研究相对较少。这可能会对理论和护理实践产生影响:本研究旨在综合相关文献、扩展知识并确定未来的研究方向。我们调查了五个有关护理关系的问题,探讨了护理关系的定义、关系实践和过程、良好护理关系的障碍和促进因素、关系的影响以及中断关系的恢复:在 PROSPERO 进行协议注册后,于 2021 年 6 月至 7 月进行了系统性文献综述。综述以官方指南为依据,以英国为重点,涵盖了 41 年来的相关工作。检索了 12 个数据库和 5 个网站,并联系了专家。共纳入 45 篇报告,并采用叙事综合框架进行了综合:护理关系的定义围绕友谊、平等、专业性和权力展开。积极护理关系的基本做法和流程包括了解护理对象、设定界限和转变权力动态。积极护理关系的障碍包括员工互动模式、归因和员工困境,而促进因素包括接受培训和使用沟通工具。良好的护理关系是有效支持的关键,而恢复被破坏的关系的方法包括接受系统治疗:某些综述问题的文献资料有限,而其他问题的文献资料则更为广泛。只有少数报道涉及护理关系本身,其余报道则侧重于沟通或互动。由于时间有限,我们无法纳入更多类型的报告。居民的声音有限:我们希望这篇综述能够促进和扩展有关护理关系的知识,并为未来的研究指明方向。研究结果可供支持人员、服务管理人员、居民、培训师、倡导者、监管者和研究人员使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review
Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications. Objectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships. Methods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework. Findings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy. Limitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited. Implications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信