What is 'agency' in torture and trauma recovery? An inquiry into the properties and explanations of the concept of agency and it's impacts.

This paper presents learnings from trauma recovery mechanisms and social movements from around the world relating to a survivor's role and as such- their agency. It unpacks various conceptual frameworks as possible alternative, effective and strategic pathways in torture rehabilitation. Ongoing and new challenges such as resourcing, cultural adaptability limitations, lack of access to services and inhumane foreign policies pose barriers to established systems that render some practices inadequate in terms of meaningful service delivery or social impact for torture survivors (Wheildon et al., 2022, p. 1689). It is well documented that "Torture aims to dehumanise survivors through calculated acts of cruelty to remove the survivors' dignity and make them powerless." (Luci and Di Rado, 2020, p. 3). As such this paper deliberately straddles multiple thematic fields, all grappling with relatable notions of restoring power or agency to survivors. At the risk of discursiveness into fields beyond torture rehabilitation then, this paper aims to showcase and learn from other successful movements. It also invites you as the reader into this discourse of inquiry and self-reflection, in order to counter the ten- dency of assuming a prescriptive, blanket (or blank) meaning of survivor engagement activities. Its findings suggest the manifestation of bespoke programming according to context and survivors' needs. It does not suggest a systematic overhaul, but rather a shift of incremental and cumulative changes that are recognised as advantageous. This paper deep dives into theories on agency, looking firstly at the broader archetypes that provide commonality and structure before then exploring particularities from different contexts. Implications for practice are then discussed, with nuances drawn out from the findings.

Best practices in survivor engagement in IRCT member centres.

INTRODUCTION: While the literature encourages engaging torture survivors in the direction and provision of services, little is known about how best to do this. METHOD: We surveyed 82 member centres of the International Rehabilitation Council for TortureVictims (IRCT), a worldwide network of anti-torture organisations, and interviewed fourteen staff members and executive directors about current practices, best practices, and the advantages and disadvantages of engaging survivors. RESULTS: While few agencies involve survivors extensively, those that did found survivor engagement helped agencies engage in better planning, service provision, and advocacy, while at the same time being healing and empowering for survivors. Agency staff described strategies to minimize retraumatization, particularly in not encouraging survivors to share the story of their trauma, but to engage in other ways. Agency staff suggested a number of ways to engage survivors in program direction, service provision, and advocacy, which included having survivors serve on the board of directors, hiring survivors as staff, involving survivors in advocacy, advising staff and volunteers on how better to provide services, and working as community outreach workers and mediators. CONCLUSION: IRCT member centres can engage survivors in programming without retraumatizing them, and there are many advantages to doing so.

Reliability and validity of the Veterans Administration Mobility Screening and Solutions Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The Veterans Administration (VA) Mobility Screening and Solutions Tool (VA MSST) was developed to screen a patient's safe mobility level 'in the moment' and provide clinical decision support related to the use of safe patient handling and mobility (SPHM) equipment. This evidence-based flowchart tool is a common language tool that enables any healthcare worker at any time to accurately measure and communicate patient mobility and transfer equipment needs across disciplines and settings. METHODS: The VA MSST has four levels and differentiates between the need for powered and non-powered equipment depending on the patient's independence. Subject matter experts wrote scenarios for interrater reliability and validity testing. The initial VA MSST draft iteration was reviewed by 163 VA staff (mostly physical therapists and occupational therapists) amongst simulation scenarios and provided content validity, and additional insight and suggestions. Revisions were made to create the final VA MSST which was evaluated by over 200 healthcare workers from varied disciplines (including medical doctors, advanced practice registered nurses, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech therapists, radiology and ultrasound technicians, etc.). An instruction video and eighteen scenario videos were embedded in an online survey. The survey intended to demonstrate the interrater reliability and validity (concurrent and construct) of the VA MSST. Over 500 VA staff (raters) received a survey invitation via email. RESULTS: Raters (N = 230) from multiple disciplines and healthcare settings independently screened patient mobility status for each of 18 scenarios using the VA MSST. The raters were diverse in their age and years of experience. The estimated interrater reliability (IRR) for VA MSST was excellent and statistically significant with an estimated Krippendorff's alpha (ICC (C, k)) of 0.998 [95% CI: 0.996-0.999]. Eighty-two percent of raters reported that overall VA MSST instructions were clear or very clear and understandable. VA MSST ratings made by technicians and nursing assistants group correlated strongly (r = 0.99, p < 0.001) with the 'gold standard' (experienced physical therapists), suggesting a high concurrent validity of the tool. The VA MSST significantly discriminated between the different levels of patient mobility required for safe mobilization as intended (each difference, p < 0.0001); this suggests a good construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The VA MSST is an evidence-based flowchart screening and decision support tool that demonstrates excellent interrater reliability across disciplines and settings. VA MSST has strong face and content validity, as well as good concurrent and construct validity.

Integrating Safe Patient Handling and Early Mobility: Combining Quality Initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Safe Patient Handling and Mobility (SPHM) programs reduce staff injuries from lifting and repositioning patients. Early Mobility programs improve many patient-centered outcomes. Reframing SPHM equipment as mobilization tools can help safely mobilize hospitalized patients to their highest abilities. PROBLEM: Combining SPHM and Early Mobility programs is logical, but to date, no one has articulated the process of integration. INTERVENTION: A quality improvement process was developed at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System to integrate an Early Exercise and Progressive Mobility initiative in the intensive care unit into an ongoing SPHM program using the Iowa Model for Evidence-Based Implementation. RESULTS: Integration of these programs was possible through extensive collaboration between stakeholders throughout planning, implementation, and refinement phases. Interdisciplinary Early Exercise and Progressive Mobility simulation training, standardized assessment, communication of patient status, and appropriate equipment use facilitated staff confidence to safely mobilize patients. CONCLUSIONS: Successful integration of Early Exercise and Progressive Mobility and SPHM was achieved at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

The detection of subclinical synovitis by ultrasound in oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Adult studies have demonstrated that ultrasonography (US) is more sensitive at detecting synovitis than clinical examination. The detection of subclinical disease has implications for deciding which patients receive more aggressive therapy from the outset. This study aimed to determine whether children with clinically diagnosed oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) had US-detectable subclinical synovitis. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional pilot study conducted in a tertiary paediatric rheumatology clinic. Seventeen children with a median age of 10 years (range 3-13 years) and with oligoarticular disease of duration <12 months (median 5 months) were recruited. All subjects were DMARD and oral/i.v. corticosteroid naïve. A core set of 40 joints was clinically examined for synovitis and then scanned by a rheumatologist trained in joint US and blinded to all clinical data, at the same appointment. RESULTS: In total, 680 joints were examined both clinically and by US. Twenty-three joints were found to have clinical synovitis, and of these only 17 had synovitis confirmed by US. A further 15 joints were found to have synovitis on US examination alone. Overall, subclinical synovitis was detected in 6/17 children, mostly in the hands and feet. One child was reclassified as having polyarticular disease. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study has highlighted a discrepancy between clinical examination and ultrasound when assessing the joints of children with JIA. US is a feasible tool for examining multiple joints and identifying subclinical synovitis, particularly when considering the small joints of the hands and feet.