MCA Improvement Programme - Accomplice...MCA Improvement Programme Leicester, Leicestershire &...

MCA Improvement Programme Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland, & Lincolnshire

c1609.4-Learning & Practice Survey Summary v1 (1).docx 1

LEADERSHIP at all LEVELS and TARGETED PROFESSIONAL SESSIONS Evaluation & Learning in to Practice: Survey Findings.

THE SURVEY

1. Around a thousand MCAIP events were held in Spring and Summer 2015. In the absence of an independent evaluation, a generic questionnaire was constructed to assess the impact of the MCAIP sessions in relation to overall programme’ goals and to provide case-studies on impact in practice.

2. The online questionnaire (Appendix 1) began with open questions to learn about (and not presume upon) participant’ motivation or view. Only then were closed questions, enquiring about delivery against more specific programme’ aims asked. The questionnaire concluded with equal opportunities monitoring. Feedback from respondents showed that, for most, the survey was easy to complete and took less than the predicted 15 minutes.

3. A preliminary analysis was made of the self-selected sample of 56 responses,

received at least three months after sessions concluded. This ‘first cut’ analysis does not drill down into the views of specific segments e.g. professions, events, geography, goals etc.. It does not provide any nor analyse the equal opportunities’ data. Project director’s have a copy of the raw data for further analysis and charting purposes. Collated and charted data is available on line.

4. In addition to the analysis, five representative case studies were extracted from

the questionnaires. They reflect the range of participants as well as their views, including one of the less favourable feedback submissions that were received from a small minority. (Appendix 2).

RESPONDENTS

5. Though self-selected, the sample of 56 reflected the range of delegates that took part in the Targeted Professionals and Leadership at all Levels events. That is, they came from across geographical areas, professions and organisations (although only four were care home personnel).

6. No respondents had attended the staff exchanges. Only one had taken part in the action learning set. Therefore they were mostly recipients of the Integritas’ provision.

!

Working in partnership to increase understanding and implementation of the MCA



GOALS

7. When asked about the circumstances surrounding their attendance at the session, the majority of respondents had wanted either to increase and/or update their knowledge on MCA/DoLS. A handful hoped for ‘assurance’ of their practice or know-how on the subject. All requirements were in line with the broad aim of the MCA Programme – to increase awareness and understanding of MCA/DoLS within the area.

8. Most respondents [40] stated they had set goals for the event. Goals largely reflected the circumstances leading to their attendance (above). Several wanted to understand more about specific practice and application of MCA/DoLs e.g. case law, the acid test, Court of Protection, process of Best Interest. A few mentioned that they wanted to update their knowledge or were keen to develop or deliver better in their new jobs or having taken up new responsibilities.

Reflection:

Further analysis of circumstances and goals might provide a better indication of the potential audiences or specific segments to which development might be focused in future.

Due to time constraints, no preliminary assessment of participant needs (or levels of understanding) pre-and post- event were conducted. Such an assessment might have enabled better segmentation of learning needs, lending greater focus to event materials, content and construction as well as advertising and satisfaction.

SATISFACTION

9. A similar level and proportion of satisfaction was recorded in all aspects of the provision: a good two-thirds being very happy with the environment, content or impact of the sessions and a small group remained less satisfied.

a. There was a high (86%) satisfaction rating by participants: 63% saying their goals had been met or exceeded; 23% having theirs mostly met. A small but important group (15%) reported only partial meeting of their goals.

b. The learning environment – with a few, unrelated and sometimes opposing views on how the environment might have been improved e.g. smaller numbers, larger rooms, different layouts, pace of sessions, provision of hand-outs.



c. The session content with the highest commendations being awarded to

the presenter/facilitators (80% fully/exceeding expectations) with new learning also featuring quite highly. Support then slightly fall as the provision of materials are considered, through to the two aspects for which most delegates had not rated as being important – group work and networking.

10. Where advice was provided on ways of improving the experience, responses were unrelated. There were individual calls for more use of scenarios, case studies, more in-depth advice on one or other aspect of MCA/DoLs etc.

Reflection.

The satisfactions rates are similar to those relayed by the development provider, Integritas, which were taken immediately after events concluded.

Future providers might consider asking more specific questions on the content of learning – aspects of MCA/DOLS, degree of application in practice, use of case-studies (deemed valuable in supporting learning in practice).

Individuals’ advice for improving the sessions, though varied, should be heeded by future providers so as to manage better delegate expectations in attending sessions and/or make adjustments to increase further satisfaction ratings.

LEARNING IN TO PRACTICE

11. Respondents’ level and proportion of satisfaction continued as questions were asked around the impact of events’ :



a. The vast majority confirmed that their requirements had been met in line with their goals. That is, an improvement in their understanding by way of “definitions … de-mystifying … fitting together the different elements” and in “providing a more in depth” knowledge both generally and on specific elements of MCA/DoLS.

b. A small number, again, advised that the sessions had provided no new learning, some requiring more practical examples and cases to assist learning.

12. Specifically in relation to the aspirational outcomes for the MCA Programme, a series of closed questions confirmed that around 80% of respondents confirmed that the events had:

a. produced a significant rise in their awareness and improvement in their understanding around MCA/DoLS.

b. produced quite a lot or a significant amount of new learning – possibly indicating those who had come to be ‘assured’ around their knowledge base

c. provided them with quite a lot or a significant amount of useful ideas on how to do their better job, equipped them better to carry out their job or help to improve the way they worked.

With under 60% confirming that there had been

d. a significant, consequent adjustment in their attitude to patients.

13. Whilst actual examples of specific patient or service user impact were noticeably

absent in responses, 85% confirmed that sessions had had quite a lot a significant impact in assisting them provide a better service to clients.



14. However, when asked to volunteer examples of where learning had already helped improve carrying out their roles performance, few examples of patient-user care were cited as approximately

a. A fifth again simply cited the increase in their knowledge base, some resulting in greater confidence

b. A fifth advised of the ability to share, discuss and/or cascade their learning, e.g. to improve the training and support … advice I give to staff … implementing policy changes.

c. A fifth confirmed that they use it to support their supervision of others, to deliver good practice … in clinical supervision and in challenging practice issues

d. A fifth advised on improvements in their practice generally e.g. “during the course of my daily work … [more able to] evidence planning on all mental capacity assessments … can read over assessments a lot more easily”

e. A few reported improvements in “dealing with patients or relatives when DoLS was necessary”; these included “ “promoting individual capacity to family and friends on an individual’s behalf, with their permission” or in being better able to “refer clients to the correct agency” or with the “excluded decisions from the Act and the stage 2 functional test”

15. Moving forward, many shared their determination to keep knowledge up to date, added that they would cascade and share learning – with an additional group (fifth) sure it would lead to a positive impact on practise, a few citing again the ultimate benefit for users e.g. “more awareness when giving our service users options in their care plan … refer to the materials whe making a referral … will consider capacity and human rights in every action.“

Reflection:

An increase of awareness and understanding has been achieved in the majority of respondents (and hence a small community of informed professionals returned to their communities),



Whilst the survey provides an indication that impact will ultimately impact on practice, the sample is too small and timeframe is too short to confirm any significant the impact in practice, particularly upon quality of service for users and patients.

Future event commissioners should allow greater time and sampling to achieve this.

THE FUTURE

16. When considering the support required in future, the majority recognised that their manager and/or team-mates, peers and other colleagues would be instrumental in ensuring their learning and practice was progressed. There was no mention of any need for further training or development sessions. The demand was simply to embed (and keep up to date and extend) the learning received.

17. Eleven respondents advised that they had not yet attended one of the Programme’s staff exchanges. Twenty-three questioned what these were but only thirteen more information on exchanges. All thirteen were sent a brief explanation on the forums and provided with a link to the November events

Reflection

The importance of managers and supervisors (as well as other team mates and colleagues) in supporting graduates of events in putting their ‘learning in to practice’. Commissioners might consider the means of ensuring managers and supervisors equip and provide the appropriate environments for translation of learning in to practice.

VALUE 18. Events were complementary for all participants. The majority of respondents [46]

confirmed that the training was worth attending and would be recommended to others. Again, a small number (6-8) were less sure of its value with two reporting it had not been value and would not be recommended to others.

Reflection

Further analysis might include a trawl of the dissatisfied minority would clarify any common patterns in concerns, profession, type of event attended etc.

CONCLUSIONS



19. An initial analysis of 56, self-selected respondents has been made to assess learning in to practice. All but one were from the Leadership at all Levels and Targeted Professionals sessions provided by Integritas.

20. Respondent’s feedback on sessions reveals that a. The vast majority of participants valued the events - style or content,

gained greater awareness around MCA/DOLS and are in the process of b. In line with the ambitions of

i. The Programme: the vast majority of participants gained significant new understanding and awareness of the MCA/DoLS – either in general or specific elements

ii. The Targeted Professionals’ project: a good number of these individuals were from the wider professional groupings such as Care Homes, GPs and the police

iii. The Leaders at all Levels Project: more informed MCA/DoLS ‘champions’ have been returned into the services across the professions, keen to share and cascade their knowledge.

c. Whilst it is still early days in tracking impact, most of the respondents appear to be in the process of translating their learning in practice, relaying their learning to others and/or are determined to progress their knowledge future.

d. The role of managers, supervisors and peers (rather than further development sessions) is now key in supporting this group implement and progress their learning.

21. Five case-studies have been selected to reflect the findings.

22. Should this combined respondents’ feedback be reflective of the participants attending the two project’s sessions, extrapolation would conclude that over Spring and Summer 2015, several hundred professionals returned to a range of professional communities across Leicester, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Rutland, keen to apply and share their significant, new knowledge of MCA/DoLS.

Nicky Spencer, November 2015

MCAIP Programme Manager (on behalf of the Programme Team)



Appendix 1:

Session Evaluation (Learning in to Practice) Questionnaire - Format.

Your feedback on the MCA /DoLs session (s) you attended is extremely important to us. Please allow 10 -15 minutes to give your views which will be treated in strictest confidence. Name or date of session(s) attended 1. Which target audience was the session for? General Practitioner - Care Home – Police - All Professions - Other, please specify below 2. Which organisation best described the one you work for?

General Practice NHS - Partnership Trust NHS - Acute Trust NHS - Ambulance NHS - Commissioner NHS - Other

Local Authority - Social Care Local Authority - Police Local Authority - Other Private Sector - Care Home Other, please specify below

3. Which geographical area do you work in?

Leicester Leicester and Leicestershire Leicestershire Leicestershire & Rutland

Lincolnshire Rutland Other

4. Who was the main presenter at your session?

Prof Mandy Ashton - Integritas - Wendy Silberman/Ming-YuinNagel; Sarah Taylor; Ben Troke; None of the above: What were the names of your presenters - or what was the session about? Where was the event held?

Realising Your Goal 5. What circumstances or challenges led you to attend the sessions? 6. Did you have a goal for the session? Yes No 7. Yes: what was your overall goal for the session? What did you hope to learn or what was the problem you were hoping to address? 8. To what extent was your goal for the session(s) met? Exceeded; Completely; mostly; partially; not at all The learning environment 9. How much did these aspects of the venue help (or detract) from your learning?

Exceeded Fully – Mostly helped - Helped in Part – Neither helped nor detracted – Detracted – Significantly detracted Location – Room – Refreshments – Timing - Duration

10. What, if any, improvements to the learning environment would have increased your learning? 11. To what extent did the content of the session(s) meet your expectations Exceeded Fully Mostly In Part Not at all Not relevant

• Presenter(s) • Facilitator • Content of the session • Materials provided • Group Work



• Networking

12. What, if any, improvements to the session content would have increased your learning? Your Learning 13. What main learning points did you take away from the session?

• What else did you achieve or learn that was important? • What did you not achieve or learn but would have liked to?

14. How much did the session, in relation to MCA/DoL, [Fully A lot Quite a lot A little Not at all]

• ... raise your awareness • ... improve your understanding • ... provide new learning • ... give useful ideas on how to do your job better • ... equip you better to carry out your role • ... help you improve the way you work • ... help you adjust your attitude to your clients* • ... result in you providing a better service to clients [by client, we mean the members

of the public, service users, patients and carers with whom you work.]

15. Please give examples of where your learning has helped you improve in carrying out your role. 16. How else do you think you will do things differently from now on? The future 17. What are your next steps in putting your learning into practice? 18. What, if any, support will you need to do this, and how will you get it? Further Contact 19. Was the session worth attending? Yes Possibly No 20. Would you recommend the session to a colleague? Yes Possibly No 21. Have you attended your local Staff MCA/DoLS

If you would like more details about the Staff MCA/DoLS Exchange, please let us know how to contact you

22. May we quote from your feedback in future publicity? 23. Share here any other comments about the session and how it helped your everyday practice Equal Opportunities Monitoring [Q24-29] Feedback on this this questionnaire 30. How easy was it to complete this questionnaire? Easy Quite Easy Quite difficult Difficult 31. How long did it take to complete this questionnaire? 0-15 min 16-30 min 31-45 min over 45 min

MCA Improvement Programme - Accomplice...MCA Improvement Programme Leicester, Leicestershire &...

Documents

Transcript of MCA Improvement Programme - Accomplice...MCA Improvement Programme Leicester, Leicestershire &...