ACT Teaching Nursing Home Bid/Writing teams - 19 May 2011

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

University of Canberra
Faculty of Health
Teaching Nursing Home Bid
1 - 4pm, 19 May Open Forum
Room 25, on level D of building 7 (7D25,
University of Canberra

An Educational Research Hub within the Faculty of Health@UC

At this meeting we will form writing teams and identify key points to be made in the submission, based on the thematic analysis of the group discussion held on 24 March and our subsequent reflections.

The meeting opened at 1.10pm, with introductions. Professor John Howard, Pro-Vice Chancellor Development and Engagement addressed the meeting from 2 to 3pm. This is a report of outcomes/ decisions taken at the meeting rather than a minuted account.

Attendance: Rosemary Oates (Anglicare South Coast), Margaret Thornton (KW IRT), Rachel Bacon (UC), David Jeffries (BCS), Luke Oborn (IRT), Jo Gibson (UC), Nikki vanDieman (Morshead), Gabrielle Cooper (UC), Laurie Grealish (UC- Chair).

Apologies: Mary Cruickshank (UC), Mark Naunton (UC), Jane MacIsaac (UC), Debbie Booth (CRCC), Leigh Blackall (UC), Greg Kyle (UC), Keith Lyons (UC), Rachel Davey (UC), Jenny Symons (Banksia Village), Darlene Cox (HCCA)

Agenda[edit | edit source]

13.00 Welcome, introductions. Overview of the writing program

1315 Small group work. We will break into two groups to develop concepts for a bid proposal in the areas of:

  1. Possible projects, prioritized based on need
  2. Possible governance models.

The work done at the Open Forum can be used to inform small group discussions (see pages 2-3)

1400 Presenting back – key issues/considerations

1430 Afternoon Tea

1500 Group Discussion

1540 What next?

Possible projects[edit | edit source]

  1. Current nomenclature and history limits development.
  2. A community of care, centred around a residential care facility, would include students from schools, vocational training, higher education in work placements for learning.
  3. A community of care would model best practice in service delivery informed by research and monitored by quality assurance measures.
  4. Quality improvement, action research, and a culture of learning is an essential feature of the community of care.
  5. A community of care provides learning experiences from students from various organizations and disciplines as well as novice carers.
  6. Intercultural competence for carers is increasingly important.
  7. The tension between RACF as one person’s home and another person’s workplace needs to be acknowledged.
  8. Research, practice and policy must be linked to ensure best practice environment and monitoring measures are employed.
  9. Person-centred care is critical.
  10. An inclusive approach to the network can promote a ‘right care, right place, right time’ principle.
  11. The RACF as a hub in a community outreach program in clinical and primary care, including health promotion.
  12. Specialised palliative care for older people, located in RACF.
  13. Use NGOs for student learning experiences.
  14. Workforce planning requires more information about the unregulated workers in aged care.
  15. Pathways for education and training from high school to university.
  16. Health promotion, early detection and primary health through student-led clinics supported by a community bus.
  17. Bring in dentistry and oral health.
  18. Increase use of IT in placement education.
  19. Person-centred student projects that build individual identity can be developed
  20. The RACF with fluid boundaries, engaged with the community.
  21. RACF as the hub for a community.
  22. Students experience a continuum of care.
  23. Inclusive of professional bodies.

Governance issues[edit | edit source]

  1. Risks of competition, rather than collaboration, associated with limited resources and differing systems at work on landscape of aged care.
  2. Practical solutions to promote collaboration are required.
  3. Language (terminology) awareness is important.
  4. A strong engagement plan, using processes such as roundtable forum to communicate, and employ systems to monitor engagement.
  5. Provide clear framework for levels of involvement.
  6. Clarify values in regard to network processes.
  7. Manage expectations of stakeholders, including students.
  8. Planning and budget are critical.
  9. Staff may be fearful of change.
  10. Cross-sector differences between aged care and health care need to be negotiatied.
  11. Manage expectations early; prepare people.
  12. Be aware of tensions between service focus and home focus in RACF.
  13. Tension between the RACF as home and institution.
  14. Negotiation of difference is critical.
  15. Community education for families about ageing options.

Agreements[edit | edit source]

  • The core aim of the teaching nursing home could be ‘professionalising the workforce’
  • A pathway for people from school (year 10) to later in professional life; from Cert 3 to Cert 4, Diploma/Associate Degree, Degree, and post graduate certificates, diplomas and Masters degrees.
  • Leisure and lifestyle is important – include students in sports studies, exercise science/physiology, physiotherapy, nutrition
  • Include newer courses in occupational therapy, public health
  • Commit to financial analysis as part of research into workforce innovation
  • All UC Faculties, not just health for placements/projects within aged care facilities
  • Volunteer/ service learning should be explored as well as formal placements for students
  • We need to collect profiles of team members for inclusion in the bid document
  • Need to prioritise activities

The UC team members will develop a draft bid document for this writing group to review and comment upon before circulation to the broader collaborative group (those who attended the Open Forum on 23 March). There may be another broader group meeting in August.

Possible research topics[edit | edit source]

  • Standard E-health records to use across aged care
  • Residential aged care as CARE centres, research transition work
  • Innovative workforce models

Possible governance considerations[edit | edit source]

  • Loose network maintained through email
  • Contracts and MOUs for core partners in TNH bid – to demonstrate sustainability
  • Consortium agreements could be developed

People we should include in the teaching nursing home bid[edit | edit source]

  • Audiologist
  • St Marks for pastoral care Schools such as UC Gininderra
  • College and UC Kaleen as well as
  • Optometrist
  • ACU for social work
  • Hawker (in relationship with KW).
  • Dementia Training
  • ANU for medical
  • ACT Health
  • study centres eg CSU for dentistry & Wollongong Uni
  • ACAT
  • podiatry
  • Geriatricians
  • CIT
  • Division of GPs
  • MAPU
  • RTOs
  • Aged Care Stream (ACT Health)
  • Southern and Murumbidgee Local
  • Health Networks
  • Employment agencies/ DEEWR

Addits: Email correspondence for information[edit | edit source]

From Jenny Symons[edit | edit source]

  • Possible titles: ‘Teaching Aged Care Partnerships’, ‘Teaching Aged Care Services’,
’Teaching Aged Care Professions’,
’Teaching Aged Care Program’, and ‘Teaching Aged Care Joint Ventures’.
  • Look at professions other than nursing

From Leigh Blackall[edit | edit source]

  • Education practices that preference WIL (work integrated learning) to work with in-home

carers (with synergies to institutions) and stair-casing career development opportunities for in-home carers

  • Research that explores questions like foreign labor opportunities and impacts, or offshore care
  • A mix of 1 and 2, where foreign labor can come to Australia for in-home care, as well as institutional service, and also have innovative career development


  • WIL opportunities in other countries, particularly non or less-industrial countries where innovations and realisations might be more likely to return to Australia