[startgroup] Re: SV: Re: START
- From: <mj.doyle1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:46:28 +0100
Thanks Kare.
Trondheim sounds good, but no speed dating!
Mike
---- "Kåre Nonstad" <kaarenonstad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike
>
>
>
> You missed a wonderful dinner and a very enjoyable START meeting
>
>
>
> 8 minutes allways sounded like speed dating to me. Exciting and fun in its
> own way, but hardly results on which to plan your (our anyones) future.
>
>
>
> On our two highest security wards: one month backwards, one month forwards,
> allways taking risk history into consideration. Lower security ward, where
> patients and circumstances are expected to be more stable: Three months. This
> fall, I am considering putting a little squeeze on: No changes in security
> level ladder upwards if the last START is older than 6 weeks on our high
> security wards. Should create some interesting dynamics.
>
>
>
> We really have to look into You and Geraint coming to Trondheim. I am sure
> some fishing could be arranged.
>
> Kåre
>
>
>
> From: mj.doyle1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [startgroup] Re: SV: Re: START
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:10:42 +0100
>
>
>
>
> Hi Kare
>
> Yes, I was disappointed about not being able to stay longer in Edinburgh, but
> new role has placed a number of restrictions on my time. In any case I
> believe the conference went very well. At least next year I won't be expected
> to nip back to the office after a day!
>
> Our original form takes about 25 minutes the first time, although extended
> format with evidence boxes etc takes 1 hour +.
>
> I guess there may be a threshold at which the START becomes impractical as a
> 'brief clinical guideline'. Many staff mistake the 'short term' aspect as
> meaning it takes a short time to complete and I seem to recall some mention
> in the early days that it could be done in 8 minutes!
>
> I am also interested to hear what time period people use to rate items; e.g.
> previous week, month, 2-months etc., as this is obviously crucial to the
> rating and dynamic nature of the tool.
>
> Thanks for your response.
> Mike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kare.Nonstad@xxxxxxxxx
> To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:05 AM
> Subject: [startgroup] SV: Re: START
>
>
> Hi Mike. Sorry You had to leave Edinburgh so soon. Isn`t it allways tempting
> to try to make a good thing do even more? I have had to curb my enthusiasm
> repeatedly in my ideas to make the START jump trough flaming rings etc. I
> like Your model, though. There is a need for developing some kind of
> meta-model concerning our branch of psyciatry.
> We probable are a chatty bunch here in Trondheim, as in my experience, a
> START meeting takes about an hour, maybe one and a half if we do the
> treatment plan in the same meeting. This is in the beginning of the patients
> stay, after a couple of STARTs, we usually make it in approx. 45 minutes.
> Maybe we should look into this.
> Kåre
>
>
>
> Fra: startgroup-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:startgroup-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> På vegne av Mike Doyle
> Sendt: 14. juli 2009 22:30
> Til: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Emne: [startgroup] Re: START
>
>
>
> Thanks Chris, Sarah and Steve for your helpful responses.
>
> I think the items are ideal areas for consideration when assessing strengths
> and risks, but also for the assessment of physical, psychological, social and
> political needs. As you know we are piloting the START to do this as part of
> applying the health career model.
>
> Initial feedback was good but the e-proforma we used (which included evidence
> boxes, formulation and intervention sections), was felt to take too long and
> many never fully completed it. In a sense we 'overcooked' the process as
> previous version was broadly welcomed! Therefore, attempting to make
> adjustments to make the process more efficient and practically useful. Will
> feedback to the group in due course.
>
> Another query; on average how long do people find the START takes to complete?
>
> Thanks again.
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: christopher webster
> To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:52 PM
> Subject: [startgroup] Re: START
>
>
> Hi Mike,
> Not sure I can add much. But, obviously, the HCR-20 provided a
> platform for us.And having a couple of senior, very experienced,nurses
> (Mary-Lou and Connie) made the essential difference. Somewhat later, as I
> explained in a paper given at the Montreal IAFMHS meeting on our joint
> behalf, I realized that a dictionary of synonyms and antonyms could have
> saved us some work. I really do,though, believe that the only way to set up
> an SPJ device that has any hope of working is to establish a small group of
> colleagues willing to work together assiduously until the task is done. It is
> not a task for a committee and it is not a task for an individual person. It
> should, of course, be a topic to be studied and researched in its own right.
> Thanks, Roger, for getting this going! Cheers(We should be a
> formidable presence in Vcvr) Chris.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Doyle
> To: startgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:15 PM
> Subject: [startgroup] START
>
>
> Nice one Roger!
>
> Looking forwarwd to networking with alll on the list.
>
> First query; where did the 20 items of the START come from?
>
> Thanks
> Mike
Other related posts:
