Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/28911
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorField, L-
dc.contributor.authorNagy, L-
dc.contributor.authorKnaggs, T-
dc.contributor.authorCollett, J-
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-01T16:47:08Z-
dc.date.available2024-05-01T16:47:08Z-
dc.date.issued2024-04-15-
dc.identifierORCiD: Leanne Field https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5729-7080-
dc.identifierORCiD: Liana Nagy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5495-7460-
dc.identifier.citationField, L. et al. (2024) 'Positive risk-taking within social care for adults with physical disabilities: A review of guidelines in practice in England', British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 0 (ahead of print), pp. 1 - 11. doi: 10.1177/03080226241246511.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0308-0226-
dc.identifier.urihttps://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/28911-
dc.descriptionData availability statement: During the development, progress, and reporting of the submitted research, Patient and Public Involvement in the research was not included at any stage of the research.en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Despite practice guidelines, professionals do not feel confident in implementing positive risk-taking. This may be due to the guidance provided. Method: A scoping review of current organisational guidance for the professional practice of positive risk-taking within Adult Social Care services for people with a physical disability. Guidelines were obtained from Local Authorities in England in October 2020. The data were extracted using TIDieR to describe positive risk-taking as an intervention. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. Findings: In all, 36 Local Authorities responded out of 106 contacted. A total of 21 documents were included for review. Substantial variability was found in terminology, definitions and risk grading between documents. The greatest consistency was found in how to implement a positive risk-taking intervention. Consistency was also found in the policy that documents cited. There was little reference to evidence to support intervention components. Overall, AGREE II quality scores were low and stakeholder involvement, specifically with regard to the views and preferences of service users, was largely absent. Conclusion: There is a need for a greater consensus to guide the professional practice of positive risk-taking. Determining the extent of current evidence and establishing an evidence base may facilitate more consistent guidelines and support professionals’ confidence in implementing positive risk-taking.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis scoping review was conducted as part of LF’s PhD funded by Health Education England Thames Valley through the INTALECA programme at Oxford Brookes University. JC is supported by NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centreen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.subjectpositive risk-takingen_US
dc.subjectadult social careen_US
dc.subjectphysical disabilitiesen_US
dc.subjectrisk enablementen_US
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_US
dc.subjecttherapeutic risken_US
dc.titlePositive risk-taking within social care for adults with physical disabilities: A review of guidelines in practice in Englanden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.date.dateAccepted2024-03-26-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/03080226241246511-
dc.relation.isPartOfBritish Journal of Occupational Therapy-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
pubs.volume0-
dc.identifier.eissn1477-6006-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf639.01 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.