The growing demand for professional updating and training within the health service has created a proliferation of post-registration courses, many of which fail to reach the appropriate personnel or the real training objectives of the participants and their managers. One reason behind this problem relates to the fact that many such courses are constructed and delivered in a haphazard way, without systematic reference to the direct and indirect consumers of the educational programmes. A more rational approach to post-experience provision of this sort might involve the methodical collection of information regarding the training needs of target health professional populations. Such a data base would afford a global overview of competencies and deficiencies, both within and between individuals. From this the content, level and focus of training could be customized to meet the reported needs, thereby streamlining the commissioning process to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Previous attempts to rationalize provision through the prior use of training needs analysis instruments have been compromised by the shortcomings of the analysis tool. This study, then, was an attempt to redress this problem, using a training needs analysis instrument developed along traditional psychometric principles. The tool was intended to be used with primary health care teams because of the increasing role this sector of the health service will play in the future delivery of care, although this would not preclude its use with other health care professionals (following appropriate modification), since the principles behind its construction and format are transferable. The instrument has demonstrable construct, content and face validity and significant reliability. Moreover, preliminary investigations suggest that it also has criterion validity in the areas tested. These findings suggest that the instrument is unique of its kind. Early use of the tool has demonstrated its value in a variety of ways, such as in team building exercises and skill mix reviews as well as in precise and effective commissioning of training and education in a range of areas.

Although in recent years there has been increasing pressure on nurses to become more research minded, available evidence still suggests that there is a significant shortfall in published nursing research. To date, it has not been clear whether this lack of output is a function of nurses' failure either to conduct research in the first place or to get it published. It is self-evident that if patient care is to be enhanced through research, then the reasons for the low output must be investigated systematically in order to understand the precise nature of the problem. Therefore, a national survey of 230 nurses was undertaken in order to ascertain the reasons underpinning the low publication rate. A questionnaire, comprising sections on biographical information, research activities and attitudes to research was distributed to a random sample of nurses and the results were analysed using techniques of descriptive and inferential statistics. The results suggest that the observed shortfall in published research is not a product of nurses' failure to conduct research projects but rather of their reluctance to submit their findings for publication. This reluctance seemed for the majority of respondents to be the result of a pronounced lack of confidence. The findings from this survey are discussed with reference to future professional development programmes.

Despite considerable top-down pressure on nurses to undertake research, the available evidence suggests that relatively few nursing studies are submitted for publication. Given the need to increase the degree to which research informs practice, this shortfall in output must of necessity constitute a cause for concern. Therefore, it seems timely that a full-scale investigation into the possible reasons for non-submission is conducted. This study, therefore, in an attempt to meet this aim, used factor analysis on the scores from an attitude-to-research scale completed by 230 nurses. The results suggested that five coherent factors underpinned the sample's general attitudes to research. These were labelled 'nurses' subjective barriers to research', 'organizational/structural barriers to research', 'doctors' reactions to nursing research', 'health care professionals' reactions to research' and 'impact of nursing research'. The variables clustering on two of these factors suggested a predictive relationship with two relevant outcome behaviours relating to research. When this was tested, the predictions were supported, indicating that these factors could be used as a quick and simple screening tool to highlight individuals or groups of nurses who might benefit maximally from specific attitude change programmes. In this way, it might be possible to increase nursing research activities and output.

No abstract

No abstract