C Bigby1, T Clement, J Mansell, J Beadle-Brown. 1. School of Social Work and Social Policy, LaTrobe University, Melbourne, Australia. C.Bigby@latrobe.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The level of resident's adaptive behaviour and staff facilitative practices are key sources of variation in outcomes for residents in community-based residential services. The higher the resident support needs the poorer their outcome. Although substantial investment has been made in values-based training for staff, their attitudes and the impact of these on practice is largely unexplored. METHOD AND FINDINGS: The first study used ethnographic and action research methods to examine the daily lives of 25 residents with severe and profound intellectual disabilities (ID), who lived in five small group homes, and the attitudes of the staff supporting them. Thematic analysis of the data led to a proposition that although staff accept principles of inclusion, choice and participation for people with ID in general, they do not consider it feasible to apply these to the people with severe and profound ID to whom they provide support. The findings from a second study that used a group comparison design and administered a short questionnaire about staff attitudes to 144 direct-care staff and first-line managers working in disability services confirmed this hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests more focused attention is needed to staff understanding the values embedded in current policies and their application to people with more severe disabilities.
BACKGROUND: The level of resident's adaptive behaviour and staff facilitative practices are key sources of variation in outcomes for residents in community-based residential services. The higher the resident support needs the poorer their outcome. Although substantial investment has been made in values-based training for staff, their attitudes and the impact of these on practice is largely unexplored. METHOD AND FINDINGS: The first study used ethnographic and action research methods to examine the daily lives of 25 residents with severe and profound intellectual disabilities (ID), who lived in five small group homes, and the attitudes of the staff supporting them. Thematic analysis of the data led to a proposition that although staff accept principles of inclusion, choice and participation for people with ID in general, they do not consider it feasible to apply these to the people with severe and profound ID to whom they provide support. The findings from a second study that used a group comparison design and administered a short questionnaire about staff attitudes to 144 direct-care staff and first-line managers working in disability services confirmed this hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests more focused attention is needed to staff understanding the values embedded in current policies and their application to people with more severe disabilities.
Authors: Dorota Chapko; Pino Frumiento; Nalini Edwards; Lizzie Emeh; Donald Kennedy; David McNicholas; Michaela Overton; Mark Snead; Robyn Steward; Jenny M Sutton; Evie Jeffreys; Catherine Long; Jess Croll-Knight; Ben Connors; Sam Castell-Ward; David Coke; Bethany McPeake; William Renel; Chris McGinley; Anna Remington; Dora Whittuck; John Kieffer; Sarah Ewans; Mark Williams; Mick Grierson Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2020-04-21
Authors: Gineke Hanzen; Ruth M A van Nispen; Carla Vlaskamp; Eliza L Korevaar; Aly Waninge; Annette A J van der Putten Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Laura Esteban; Patricia Navas; Miguel Ángel Verdugo; Víctor B Arias Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gineke Hanzen; Aly Waninge; Ruth M A van Nispen; Carla Vlaskamp; Wendy J Post; Annette A J van der Putten Journal: J Appl Res Intellect Disabil Date: 2020-08-13