Experiences of facilitators and barriers for fulfilment of human needs when living with restless legs syndrome: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) is a widespread condition that affects sleep leading to daytime sleepiness, depression, and reduced quality of life. This study aims to determine and describe how patients with RLS experience their everyday life, with a focus on facilitators and barriers related to Maslow's hierarchical theory of human needs. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis resulting in facilitators and barriers affecting the fulfilment of the five human needs. RESULTS: Addressing RLS symptoms through medications and a quiet sleep environment fulfils psychological needs. Control over RLS symptoms, engagement in activities, trust in treatments, and social support meet safety and security needs. Social inclusion, close relationships, and meaningful interactions fulfil a sense of belongingness and love needs despite RLS. Competence in managing RLS, effective self-care strategies, confident communication, and trust-building support esteem needs. Finally, comprehensive understanding through person-centred interventions and coping fulfils the self-actualization needs in managing RLS. CONCLUSION: Holistic and person-centred interventions, including facilitators for the fulfilment of physiological, psychological, and social needs could help healthcare professionals to provide holistic care.

An Evaluation of the Relationship between Training of Health Practitioners in a Person-Centred Care Model and their Person-Centred Attitudes.

Introduction: The Esther Network (EN) person-centred care (PCC) advocacy training aims to promote person-centred attitudes among health practitioners in Singapore. This study aimed to assess the relationship between the training and practitioners' PCC attributes over a 3-month period, and to explore power sharing by examining the PCC dimensions of "caring about the service user as a whole person" and the "sharing of power, control and information". Methods: A repeated-measure study design utilising the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), was administered to 437 training participants at three time points - before training (T1), immediately after (T2) and three months after training (T3). A five-statement questionnaire captured knowledge of person-centred care at T1 and T2. An Overall score, Caring and Sharing sub-scores were derived from the PPOS. Scores were ranked and divided into three groups (high, medium and low). Ordinal Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) model analysed changes in PPOS scores over time. Results: A single, short-term training appeared to result in measurable improvements in person-centredness of health practitioners, with slight attenuation at T3. There was greater tendency to "care" than to "share power" with service users across all three time points, but the degree of improvement was larger for sharing after training. The change in overall person-centred scores varied by sex and profession (females score higher than males, allied health showed a smaller attenuation at T3). Conclusion: Training as a specific intervention, appeared to have potential to increase health practitioners' person-centredness but the aspect of equalising power was harder to achieve within a hierarchical structure and clinician-centric culture. An ongoing network to build relationships, and a supportive system to facilitate individual and organisational reflexivity can reinforce learning.

How the Esther Network model for coproduction of person-centred health and social care was adopted and adapted in Singapore: a realist evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The Esther Network (EN) model, a person-centred care innovation in Sweden, was adopted in Singapore to promote person-centredness and improve integration between health and social care practitioners. This realist evaluation aimed to explain its adoption and adaptation in Singapore. DESIGN: An organisational case study using a realist evaluation approach drawing on Greenhalgh et al (2004)'s Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations to guide data collection and analysis. Data collection included interviews with seven individuals and three focus groups (including stakeholders from the macrosystem, mesosystem and microsystem levels) about their experiences of EN in Singapore, and field notes from participant observations of EN activities. SETTING: SingHealth, a healthcare cluster serving a population of 1.37 million residents in Eastern Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: Policy makers (n=4), EN programme implementers (n=3), practitioners (n=6) and service users (n=7) participated in individual interviews or focus group discussions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome data from healthcare institutions (n=13) and community agencies (n=59) were included in document analysis. RESULTS: Singapore's ageing population and need to transition from a hospital-based model to a more sustainable community-based model provided an opportunity for change. The personalised nature and logic of the EN model resonated with leaders and led to collective adoption. Embedded cultural influences such as the need for order and hierarchical structures were both barriers to, and facilitators of, change. Coproduction between service users and practitioners in making care improvements deepened the relationships and commitments that held the network together. CONCLUSIONS: The enabling role of leaders (macrosystem level), the bridging role of practitioners (mesosystem level) and the unifying role of service users (microsystem level) all contributed to EN's success in Singapore. Understanding these roles helps us understand how staff at various levels can contribute to the adoption and adaptation of EN and similar complex innovations systemwide.

Aging of severely mentally ill patients first admitted before or after the reorganization of psychiatric care in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The concept of deinstitutionalization started in the 1960s in the US to describe closing down or reducing the number of beds in mental hospitals. The same process has been going on in many countries but with different names and in various forms. In Europe, countries like Italy prescribed by law an immediate ban on admitting patients to mental hospitals while in some other European countries psychiatric care was reorganized into a sectorized psychiatry characterized by open psychiatric care. This sectorization has not been studied to the same extent as the radical closures of mental hospitals, even though it entailed major changes in the organization of care. The deinstitutionalization in Sweden is connected to the sectorization of psychiatric care, a protracted process taking years to implement. METHODS: Older people, with their first admission to psychiatric care before or after the sectorization process, were followed using three different time metrics: (a) year of first entry into a mental hospital, (b) total years of institutionalization, and (c) changes resulting from aging. Data from surveys in 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 were used, together with National registers. RESULTS: Examination of date of first institutionalization and length of stay indicates a clear break in 1985, the year when the sectorization was completed in the studied municipality. The results show that the two groups, despite belonging to the same age group (birthyears 1910-1951, mean birthyear 1937), represented two different patient generations. The pre-sectorization group was institutionalized at an earlier age and accumulated more time in institutions than the post-sectorization group. Compared to the post-sectorization group, the pre-sectorization group were found to be disadvantaged in that their level of functioning was lower, and they had more unmet needs, even when diagnosis was taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Sectorization is an important divide which explains differences in two groups of the same age but with different institutional history: "modern" and "traditional" patient generations that received radically different types of care. The results indicate that the sectorization of psychiatric care might be as important as the Mental Health Care Reform of 1995, although a relatively quiet revolution.