The Co-Production of the Roots Framework: A Reflective Framework for Mapping the Implementation Journey of Trauma-Informed Care
Thirkle, S. A.; Kennedy, A.; Sice, P.; Patel, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe trauma-informed care programme at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Foundation NHS Trust identified a need to evaluate the ongoing service-wide trauma-informed care implementation effort. An absence of staff, service user and system-related outcomes specific to trauma-informed care presented barriers to monitoring the adoption of trauma-informed approaches and progress over time across the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Foundation NHS Trust. This paper describes the co-production of a new self-assessment tool, Roots, a discussion-based framework that facilitates learning and improvement by reflecting on positive or negative examples of trauma-informed services. MethodsUsing secondary data obtained from an affiliated national trauma summit and instruments found in literature, domains and items were co-produced with the help of trauma-informed care leads, NHS staff and service users. The research design consisted of community-based co-production methods such as surveys, focus groups, and expert consultations. ResultsAdopting trauma-informed care requires enthusiasm and commitment from all members of the organisation. Services must adapt to meet the dynamic needs of staff and service users to ensure they remain trauma-informed; this must be done as a community. ConclusionsFollowing an extensive co-production process, the Roots framework was published open-access and accompanied by a user manual. Roots can provide both qualitative and quantitative insights on trauma-informed care implementation by provoking the sharing of experience across services.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses 96%
- What support do frontline workers want? A qualitative study of health and social care workers’ experiences and views of psychosocial support during the COVID-19 pandemic 95%
- Clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with Complex Emotional Needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adverse event reviews in healthcare: What matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family 95%
- The psychosocial impact on frontline health and social care professionals in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study 95%
- NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trauma informed co-production: Collaborating and combining expertise to improve access to primary care with women with complex needs 95%
- Challenges of visibility and inclusion in Long COVID: a population-based interview study 93%
- “I don’t know what to do or where to go”. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A qualitative investigation of crisis cafés in England: their role, implementation, and accessibility 96%
- Emerging models and trends in mental health crisis care in England: a national investigation of crisis care systems 96%
- ‘Beyond Places of Safety’ – a qualitative study exploring the implementation of mental health crisis care innovations across England 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Secondary Stressors And Their Psychosocial Impacts On Healthcare Staff: Lessons From A Qualitative Systematic Review From The COVID-19 Pandemic In The UK 94%
- Healthcare Workers' Mental Health and Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK: Contrasting Guidelines with Experiences in Practice 93%
- Effectiveness, acceptability and potential harms of peer support for self-harm in non-clinical settings: A systematic review 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.