Search

Abstract Introduction As patients, members of the public, and professional stakeholders engage in co‐producing health‐related research, an important issue to consider is trauma. Trauma is very common and associated with a wide range of physical and behavioural health conditions. Thus, it may benefit research partnerships to consider its impact on their stakeholders as well as its relevance to the health condition under study. The aims of this article are to describe the development and evaluation of a training programme that applied principles of trauma‐informed care (TIC) to patient‐ and public‐engaged research. Methods A research partnership focused on addressing trauma in primary care patients (‘myPATH’) explicitly incorporated TIC into its formation, governance document and collaborative processes, and developed and evaluated a free 3‐credit continuing education online training. The training was presented by 11 partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) and included academic content and lived experiences. Results Training participants (N = 46) positively rated achievement of learning objectives and speakers' performance (ranging from 4.39 to 4.74 on a 5‐point scale). The most salient themes from open‐ended comments were that training was informative (n = 12) and that lived experiences shared by patient partners were impactful (n = 10). Suggestions were primarily technical or logistical. Conclusion This preliminary evaluation indicates that it is possible to incorporate TIC principles into a research partnership's collaborative processes and training about these topics is well‐received. Learning about trauma and TIC may benefit research partnerships that involve patients and public stakeholders studying a wide range of health conditions, potentially improving how stakeholders engage in co‐producing research as well as producing research that addresses how trauma relates to their health condition under study. Patient or Public Contribution The myPATH Partnership includes 22 individuals with professional and lived experiences related to trauma (https://www.usf.edu/cbcs/mhlp/centers/mypath/); nine partners were engaged due to personal experiences with trauma; other partners are community‐based providers and researchers. All partners contributed ideas that led to trauma‐informed research strategies and training. Eleven partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) presented the training, and 12 partners (8 professionals, 4 patients) contributed to this article and chose to be named as authors.

The breeding biology of Pied Flycatchers and Redstarts was studied from 1975 to 2002 in wooden nest boxes deployed in oak woodland on the north side of Loch Katrine, Upper Forth. The averages for the annual mean first-egg dates were 22 May for Pied Flycatchers and 20 May for Redstarts. Both species showed a trend for earlier breeding, matching the trend for springs becoming warmer, as recorded locally. The relationships between first-egg dates and early May (1-15 May) temperatures remained after detrending the time-series and examination of residual values. The average date of laying of the first egg was 5.5 days earlier for Pied Flycatchers in the five years 1998-2002 compared to 1975-79, and 8.8 days earlier for Redstarts. The mean clutch size was 6.60 eggs for Pied Flycatchers and 6.34 eggs for Redstarts, and there were no trends over time. Similarly, the mean annual brood size showed no trends for the two species. The averages for the annual mean brood size from first breeding attempts were 5.55 and 5.75 for Pied Flycatchers and Redstarts respectively. Redstarts that had a second breeding attempt had smaller clutch and brood sizes. For most of the study period, the percentage of nests that failed to produce well-grown chicks varied around 11% for both species. This percentage increased markedly (to around 35%) by 1999-2002, due to high levels of desertion, and particularly predation of Pied Flycatcher nests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To assess how involved patients wish to be in the compilation of their NHS core clinical record, and to assess the accuracy of general practitioner (GP) produced summaries. DESIGN, SETTING, METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS: In a Scottish urban practice of 6800 patients we compiled a core clinical summary based on historical paper and electronic records. We invited a 1 in 10 sample of our patients of all ages to request, view and check a copy of their core clinical record. We offered patients the chance to discuss and correct any inaccuracies in their core clinical summary by use of a response form, telephone or meeting. RESULTS: Out of 646 patients, 258 (40% of our sample) responded to the invitation to check their core clinical summary. Of those, 187 (72.5%) of these summaries were accurate according to patients. There were 89 inaccuracies reported by patients. Of these, 42 (47%) were of obvious clinical importance including wrongly entered diagnoses, or missing major morbidity such as an operation, or errors in repeat medication. There were 47 (53%) inaccuracies in lifestyle data (smoking, alcohol history or weight), or dates of illnesses. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of patients chose to view and offer comment on their core clinical summaries. The majority of summaries were deemed to be accurate but there was a worrying level of omission and inaccuracy, including medication. It might be a better use of time to support doctors and patients working together to construct and check summaries rather than on information technology (IT) and the complex ethical debate surrounding the core clinical Spine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]