In line with healthcare reform across the world, the National Clinical Programme for Epilepsy (NCPE) in Ireland describes a model that aims to achieve holistic integrated person (patient)-centered care (PCC). While generally welcomed by stakeholders, the steps required to realize the NCPE ambition and the preparedness of those involved to make the journey are not clear. This study explored the perceptions of healthcare providers in the Irish epilepsy care ecosystem to understand their level of readiness to realize the benefits of an integrated PCC model. Ethnographic fieldwork including observations of different clinical settings across three regions in Ireland and one-to-one interviews with consultant epileptologists (n = 3), epilepsy specialist nurses (n = 5), general practitioners (n = 4), and senior healthcare managers (n = 3) were conducted. While there is a person-centered ambiance and a disposition toward advancing integrated PCC, there are limits to the readiness of the epilepsy care environment to fully meet the aspirations of healthcare reform. These are the following: underdeveloped healthcare partnerships;, poor care coordination;, unintended consequences of innovation;, and tension between pace and productivity. In the journey from policy to practice, the following multiple tensions collide: policy aims to improve services for all patients while simultaneously individualizing care; demands for productivity limit the time and space required to engage in incremental and iterative improvement initiatives. Understanding these tensions is an essential first step on the pathway to integrated PCC implementation.

This paper presents a systematic literature review of academic staff experiences and perceptions of adopting Technology for Assessment OF/FOR/AS Learning in Higher Education. This paper is a qualitative synthesis of 65 peer‐reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2017 reporting on the use of technology for assessment (TfA). The results suggest that there are some efficiencies for staff in implementing TfA but this can come with a cost at the set‐up and maintenance phases. Furthermore, results indicated that assessment design is not of foremost concern to academic staff when introducing TfA, but that a wide variety of pressures and both educational and operational drivers are present. There were inconclusive findings in relation to understandings of appropriate institutional environments and supports for TfA to flourish in higher education. There is a need for empirical research, particularly longitudinal investigations, of academic experiences of implementations of TfA to investigate sustainability of adoption. The imperative of exploring the academic staff perspective as the instigator and manager of both the technology and the student learning experience requires deep consideration as TfA adoption progresses.

No abstract

Models of care developed to improve the lives of people with chronic diseases highlight integrated care as essential to meeting their needs and achieving person (patient)-centered care (PCC). Nevertheless, barriers to collaborative practice and siloed work environments persist. To set in motion some groundwork for intersectoral collaboration this study brought two expert groups of epilepsy care practitioners together to engage in participatory action research (PAR). The expert practitioner groups were hospital-based epilepsy specialist nurses (ESNs) and community-based resource officers (CROs). The PAR highlighted, that while the participants share a mutual interest in caring for people with epilepsy, underdeveloped CRO-ESN relationships, arising from unconscious bias and ambiguity can result in missed opportunities for optimal care coordination with consequent potential for unnecessary replication and waste of finite resources. However, through dialogue and critical self-reflection, a growing emotional connection between the disciplines evolved over the course of the PAR. This allowed for buds of collaboration to develop with CROs and ESNs working together to tackle some of the key barriers to their collaboration.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract