Search

In most classrooms in most schools, there are students who have suffered complex trauma who would benefit from a system-wide, trauma-informed approach to schooling. Despite growth in Australian schools adopting trauma-informed practice, education systems are yet to embrace a whole-of-organization approach, unlike other systems supporting children and adolescents. This is likely due to multifarious complexities inherent in, and specific to, the schooling system. This article reviews early findings from current research in Queensland, Australia that is exploring requirements for a system-wide approach to trauma-informed schooling. Findings highlight that achieving systemic, trauma-informed schooling is complex but necessary and has potential to improve outcomes for students and those aiming to educate them. Findings have implications for schooling and education systems worldwide.

Teacher retention is a key issue facing schools, with stress, student behavior, current competitive policies, and practices resulting in many leaving within the first 5 years of qualification. Consequently, recent in-school research initiatives have focused on resilience training, although the quality of such conducted studies is debated. Drawn from compassion-focused therapy (CFT), this study set out to explore a six-module compassionate mind training (CMT) program with school staff to improve well-being. As part of their continued professional development, over 70 teachers and support staff took part in the CMT, with a mixed-measures AAB quantitative and qualitative design employed. This enabled us to explore both implementation effectiveness and outcome effectiveness in terms of parameters of well-being. The initiative was well received with the majority of staff reporting positively on their experiences of the curriculum and practices. Additionally, exercise practice was associated with significant increases in self-compassion ( p < 0.01) and significant decreases in self-criticism ( p < 0.05). Thematic analyses further revealed benefits of CMT for dealing with emotional difficulties. As a feasibility study, our results demonstrate many benefits of CMT in educational settings. CMT may hold promise as a way of helping those in education counteract the current competition-based nature of education, especially that which contributes to negative changes in well-being. Given this, future research should employ a control group design, a larger sample size, and a range of well-being measures at follow-up, to fully evaluate the utility of CMT in educational settings.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Although schools can improve children's access to mental health services, not all school-based providers are able to successfully deliver evidence-based practices. Indeed, even when school clinicians are trained in evidence-based practices (EBP), the training does not necessarily result in the implementation of those practices. This study explores factors that influence implementation of a particular EBP, Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS). Semi-structured telephone interviews with 35 site administrators and clinicians from across the United States were conducted 6-18 months after receiving CBITS training to discuss implementation experiences. The implementation experiences of participants differed, but all reported similar barriers to implementation. Sites that successfully overcame such barriers differed from their unsuccessful counterparts by having greater organizational structure for delivering school services, a social network of other clinicians implementing CBITS, and administrative support for implementation. This study suggests that EBP implementation can be facilitated by having the necessary support from school leadership and peers.

This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence for universal school-based (USB) social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions for students in kindergarten through 12th grade available from 2008 through 2020. The sample includes 424 studies from 53 countries, reflecting 252 discrete USB SEL interventions, involving 575,361 students. Results endorsed that, compared to control conditions, students who participate in USB SEL interventions experienced significantly improved skills, attitudes, behaviors, school climate and safety, peer relationships, school functioning, and academic achievement. Significant heterogeneity in USB SEL content, intervention features, context, and implementation quality moderated student experiences and outcomes. Strengths and limitations of this evidence and implications for future USB SEL research, policy, and practice are discussed.

For the last 15 years, teacher wellbeing has been a priority area of exploration within education and positive psychology literatures. However, increasing teacher wellbeing for those who educate students impacted by trauma has yet to be comprehensively explored despite repeated exposure of teachers to child trauma and their experiences of associated negative effects such as secondary traumatic stress, vicarious traumatisation, compassion fatigue and burnout. This study follows teachers’ understandings and reflections upon their own wellbeing after learning the literatures supporting trauma-informed positive education. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used as the methodological approach to represent teachers (N = 18) in order to privilege the language, voices and experiences of participants. Results yielded a new set of domains of trauma-informed teacher wellbeing to assist teachers to increase their own wellbeing when working with students. The likely upsurge in students and teachers across the world experiencing trauma symptoms (primary and vicarious) arising from the COVID-19 global pandemic makes this research timely and relevant.

Background: Nurses comprise the largest component of the health workforce worldwide and numerous models of workforce allocation and profile have been implemented. These include changes in skill mix, grade mix or qualification mix, staff‐allocation models, staffing levels, nursing shifts, or nurses’ work patterns. This is the first update of our review published in 2011. Objectives: The purpose of this review was to explore the effect of hospital nurse‐staffing models on patient and staff‐related outcomes in the hospital setting, specifically to identify which staffing model(s) are associated with: 1) better outcomes for patients, 2) better staff‐related outcomes, and, 3) the impact of staffing model(s) on cost outcomes. Search methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers were searched on 22 March 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, controlled before‐after studies and interrupted‐time‐series or repeated‐measures studies of interventions relating to hospital nurse‐staffing models. Participants were patients and nursing staff working in hospital settings. We included any objective reported measure of patient‐, staff‐related, or economic outcome. The most important outcomes included in this review were: nursing‐staff turnover, patient mortality, patient readmissions, patient attendances at the emergency department (ED), length of stay, patients with pressure ulcers, and costs. Data collection and analysis: We worked independently in pairs to extract data from each potentially relevant study and to assess risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Main results: We included 19 studies, 17 of which were included in the analysis and eight of which we identified for this update. We identified four types of interventions relating to hospital nurse‐staffing models: introduction of advanced or specialist nurses to the nursing workforce; introduction of nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce; primary nursing; and staffing models. The studies were conducted in the USA, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, and Canada and included patients with cancer, asthma, diabetes and chronic illness, on medical, acute care, intensive care and long‐stay psychiatric units. The risk of bias across studies was high, with limitations mainly related to blinding of patients and personnel, allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of outcome assessment. The addition of advanced or specialist nurses to hospital nurse staffing may lead to little or no difference in patient mortality (3 studies, 1358 participants). It is uncertain whether this intervention reduces patient readmissions (7 studies, 2995 participants), patient attendances at the ED (6 studies, 2274 participants), length of stay (3 studies, 907 participants), number of patients with pressure ulcers (1 study, 753 participants), or costs (3 studies, 617 participants), as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether adding nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce reduces costs (1 study, 6769 participants), as we assessed the evidence for this outcome to be of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether primary nursing (3 studies, &gt; 464 participants) or staffing models (1 study, 647 participants) reduces nursing‐staff turnover, or if primary nursing (2 studies, &gt; 138 participants) reduces costs, as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes to be of very low certainty. Authors' conclusions: The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was included. We have most confidence in our finding that the introduction of advanced or specialist nurses may lead to little or no difference in one patient outcome (i.e. mortality) with greater uncertainty about other patient outcomes (i.e. readmissions, ED attendance, length of stay and pressure ulcer rates). The evidence is of insufficient certainty to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of other types of interventions, including new nurse‐staffing models and introduction of nursing assistive personnel, on patient, staff and cost outcomes. Although it has been seven years since the original review was published, the certainty of the evidence about hospital nurse staffing still remains very low.

Childhood trauma has been receiving increased attention and it is increasingly being recognized as a significant public health concern (Lang, Campbell, & Vanerploeg, 2015). Trauma exposure involves "actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence" that is either directly experienced or witnessed, or learning that any traumatic experiences have happened to a loved one, or having repeated exposure to details of traumatic events (APA, 2013, p. 271). Prevalence estimates of trauma experienced in childhood or adolescence vary by type of traumatic event (e.g., physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, witnessing violence, natural disasters) and how and when the traumatic experience is measured, but can range between 4% and 71% Exposure to traumatic events can disrupt brain development and can have immediate and lifelong adverse effects on social, emotional and physical wellbeing, including deficits executive functioning, developmental delays, behavioural health problems, difficulty regulating emotions and behaviour, academic performance and IQ, school behaviour problems, delinquency