Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards r...

Associated organisational unit

View graph of relations

Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards risk assessment

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards risk assessment. / Weatherhead, Stephen; Newby, Gavin; Skirrow, Paul.

In: Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012, p. 77-88.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Weatherhead, Stephen ; Newby, Gavin ; Skirrow, Paul. / Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards risk assessment. In: Social Care and Neurodisability. 2012 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 77-88.

Bibtex

@article{2b82c312d2084710b398f6761a46b388,
title = "Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards risk assessment",
abstract = "Purpose – The sequelae of acquired brain injury can lead to a complex array of risks. This research explores professionals' perspectives on those risks, focussing on how psycho-social risks are assessed and managed.Design/methodology/approach – A self completion questionnaire was designed, and distributed to a range of professionals working in brain injury services.Findings – A total of 177 participants completed an anonymous questionnaire. Principal components analysis produced three factors, which were given the labels “User-friendliness”, “Person-centeredness” and “Coherence”. Inconsistencies were identified in approaches to risk assessment and management. Participants also reported particular beneficial approaches, such as multi-disciplinary discussions, and using assessments to guide rehabilitation.Research limitations/implications – The convenience sampling approach limits the generalisablity of the findings. However, the study was adequately powered, reliable, and valid.Practical implications – The findings of this research, existing literature, and clinical experience are drawn together in a proposed model for managing risk. This model, which incorporates the three factors identified through statistical analysis could guide effective risk management, documentation and associated procedures. The model presents a framework for service design and provision, as well as providing a focus for future research.Social implications – It is likely that more active engagement in risk assessment on the part of professionals, services, and those who access services, will be engendered if the process is able to become more user-friendly, person-centred, and coherent, across and within service provision.Originality/value – Despite legislative calls for regular training and effective communication in relation to risk, this is not the routine experience of professionals working in brain injury services. The findings of the present research offer a new, structured process, for overcoming the challenge for embedding legislation and research findings into practice.",
keywords = "Attitudes, Brain injury , Health services , Injuries , Neuropsychology , Policy, Questionnaire, Rehabilitation , Risk, Risk analysis , Service development , United Kingdom",
author = "Stephen Weatherhead and Gavin Newby and Paul Skirrow",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1108/20420911211240939",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "77--88",
journal = "Social Care and Neurodisability",
issn = "2042-0919",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brain injury professionals' attitudes towards risk assessment

AU - Weatherhead, Stephen

AU - Newby, Gavin

AU - Skirrow, Paul

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose – The sequelae of acquired brain injury can lead to a complex array of risks. This research explores professionals' perspectives on those risks, focussing on how psycho-social risks are assessed and managed.Design/methodology/approach – A self completion questionnaire was designed, and distributed to a range of professionals working in brain injury services.Findings – A total of 177 participants completed an anonymous questionnaire. Principal components analysis produced three factors, which were given the labels “User-friendliness”, “Person-centeredness” and “Coherence”. Inconsistencies were identified in approaches to risk assessment and management. Participants also reported particular beneficial approaches, such as multi-disciplinary discussions, and using assessments to guide rehabilitation.Research limitations/implications – The convenience sampling approach limits the generalisablity of the findings. However, the study was adequately powered, reliable, and valid.Practical implications – The findings of this research, existing literature, and clinical experience are drawn together in a proposed model for managing risk. This model, which incorporates the three factors identified through statistical analysis could guide effective risk management, documentation and associated procedures. The model presents a framework for service design and provision, as well as providing a focus for future research.Social implications – It is likely that more active engagement in risk assessment on the part of professionals, services, and those who access services, will be engendered if the process is able to become more user-friendly, person-centred, and coherent, across and within service provision.Originality/value – Despite legislative calls for regular training and effective communication in relation to risk, this is not the routine experience of professionals working in brain injury services. The findings of the present research offer a new, structured process, for overcoming the challenge for embedding legislation and research findings into practice.

AB - Purpose – The sequelae of acquired brain injury can lead to a complex array of risks. This research explores professionals' perspectives on those risks, focussing on how psycho-social risks are assessed and managed.Design/methodology/approach – A self completion questionnaire was designed, and distributed to a range of professionals working in brain injury services.Findings – A total of 177 participants completed an anonymous questionnaire. Principal components analysis produced three factors, which were given the labels “User-friendliness”, “Person-centeredness” and “Coherence”. Inconsistencies were identified in approaches to risk assessment and management. Participants also reported particular beneficial approaches, such as multi-disciplinary discussions, and using assessments to guide rehabilitation.Research limitations/implications – The convenience sampling approach limits the generalisablity of the findings. However, the study was adequately powered, reliable, and valid.Practical implications – The findings of this research, existing literature, and clinical experience are drawn together in a proposed model for managing risk. This model, which incorporates the three factors identified through statistical analysis could guide effective risk management, documentation and associated procedures. The model presents a framework for service design and provision, as well as providing a focus for future research.Social implications – It is likely that more active engagement in risk assessment on the part of professionals, services, and those who access services, will be engendered if the process is able to become more user-friendly, person-centred, and coherent, across and within service provision.Originality/value – Despite legislative calls for regular training and effective communication in relation to risk, this is not the routine experience of professionals working in brain injury services. The findings of the present research offer a new, structured process, for overcoming the challenge for embedding legislation and research findings into practice.

KW - Attitudes

KW - Brain injury

KW - Health services

KW - Injuries

KW - Neuropsychology

KW - Policy

KW - Questionnaire

KW - Rehabilitation

KW - Risk

KW - Risk analysis

KW - Service development

KW - United Kingdom

U2 - 10.1108/20420911211240939

DO - 10.1108/20420911211240939

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

SP - 77

EP - 88

JO - Social Care and Neurodisability

JF - Social Care and Neurodisability

SN - 2042-0919

IS - 2

ER -