We aimed to learn about the value of family placements from the perspective of parent-carers who provide them to nurse students via a Scottish university Family Placement Scheme.
Method:
Qualitative interviews were conducted with seven parent-carers who provided a family placement over two academic years. Descriptive data was analysed, organized into themes and subject to content analysis: parents’ descriptions of caring; their perceived value of family placements; and their views and experiences of participation in intellectual disability nurse education.
Results:
Family placements are beneficial to nurse students and families with children with an intellectual disability. Description of wider aspects of caring was provided, offering insight into learning experiences of students on placement.
Conclusion:
This model of learning provides opportunities for students to appreciate the reality of caring for a relative with an intellectual disability at home. Students develop their practice skills for working in partnership with family carers.
AliAHassiotisAStrydomA. (2012) Self stigma in people with intellectual disabilities and courtesy stigma in family carers: a systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities33(6): 2122–2140.
2.
AllenP (2014) Chapter 1: Mental deficiency institutions: Have obituaries been fair and balanced? In: JukesM (ed) Learning Disability Nursing Practice. Andrews UK Limited.
3.
BassettAM (2013) Cultural issues in pre-registered mental health student nurses’ clinical placements: an anthropologically informed critical incident study. Doctoral dissertation, Nottingham Trent University, UK.
4.
BigbyCFrawleyPRamcharanP (2014) Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities27(1): 3–12.
5.
BlacherJBakerBL (2007) Positive impact of intellectual disability on families. American Journal on Mental Retardation112(5): 330–348.
6.
BorsayA (2005) Disability and Social Policy in Britain Since 1750: A History of Exclusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
8.
CairnsDTolsonDBrownJ. (2013) The need for future alternatives: an investigation of the experiences and future of older parents caring for offspring with learning disabilities over a prolonged period of time. British Journal of Learning Disabilities41(1): 73–82.
9.
ChadwickDDMannanHGarcia IriarteE. (2013) Family voices: Life for family carers of people with intellectual disabilities in Ireland. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities26(2): 119–132.
10.
CharltonJI (1998) Nothing about us without us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
ClaphamA (2014) The future of learning disabilities nursing in the UK. Nursing Standard28(44): 44–51.
12.
CooperHSpencer-DaweE (2006) Involving service users in inter-professional education narrowing the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care20(6): 603–617.
13.
DeanE (2010) Pressure on universities to find more community placements. Nursing Standard24(52): 12–13.
14.
Department of Health (2001) Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century. London, UK: HMSO.
15.
DysonLL (1996) The experiences of families of children with learning disabilities: parental stress, family functioning, and sibling self-concept. Journal of Learning Disabilities29(3): 280–286.
16.
EmersonEHattonC (2008) People with learning disabilities in England. Lancaster, United Kingdom: Centre for Disability Research, Lancaster University.
17.
EmersonERobertsonJBainesS. (2014) The self-rated health of British adults with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities35(3): 591–596.
18.
FinlaysonJDarbyshireC (2015) What students, carers and children can learn from family placements. Learning Disability Practice18(4): 19–26.
19.
FroggettLBriggsS (2012) Practice-near and practice-distant methods in human services research. Journal of Research Practice8(2): 9.
20.
GreenSE (2007) “We’re tired, not sad”: benefits and burdens of mothering a child with a disability. Social Science & Medicine64(1): 150–163.
21.
HeslopPBlairPSFlemingP. (2014) The Confidential Inquiry into premature deaths of people with intellectual disabilities in the UK: a population-based study. The Lancet383(9920): 889–895.
22.
Hingley-JonesH (2009) Developing practice-near social work research to explore the emotional worlds of severely learning disabled adolescents in ‘transition’ and their families. Journal of Social Work Practice23(4): 413–428.
23.
HodgeS (2006) Participation, discourse and power: a case study in service user involvement. Critical Social Policy25(2): 164–179.
24.
IrazábalMMarsàFGarcíaM. (2012) Family burden related to clinical and functional variables of people with intellectual disability with and without a mental disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities33(3): 796–803.
25.
JoffeHYardleyL (2004) Content and thematic analysis. In: MarksDYardleyL (eds) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 58–68.
26.
KellC (2014) Placement education pedagogy as social participation: what are students really learning?Physiotherapy Research International19(1): 44–54.
27.
KiernanC (1999) Participation in research by people with learning disability: origins and issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities27(2): 43–47.
28.
MarlowASprattCReillyA (2008) Collaborative action learning: a professional model for education in nursing. Nurse Education in Practice8(3): 184–189.
29.
MartinGP (2008) ‘Ordinary people only’: knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness30(1): 35–54.
30.
Mencap (2007) Death by Indifference: Following up the Treat Me Right! Report. London, United Kingdom: MENCAP.
31.
MillarL (2014) Use of Hub and Spoke model in nursing students’ practice learning. Nursing Standard28(49): 37–42.
32.
MitchellD (2004) Learning disability nursing. British Journal of Learning Disabilities32: 115–118.
33.
NorthwayRHowarthJEvansL (2015) Participatory research, people with intellectual disabilities and ethical approval: making reasonable adjustments to enable participation. Journal of Clinical Nursing24(3–4): 573–581.
34.
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2005) Standards of Proficiency for Pre-Registration Nurse Education. London: NMC
35.
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2010a) Standards for Pre-Registration Nursing Education. London: NMC
36.
Nursing and Midwifery Council (2010b) Guidance on Professional Conduct for Nursing and Midwifery Students. London: NMC
37.
RodgersJ (1999) Trying to get it right: undertaking research involving people with learning difficulties. Disability & Society14(4): 421–433.
38.
RoxburghM (2014) Undergraduate student nurses’ perceptions of two practice learning models: a focus group study. Nurse Education Today34(1): 40–46.
39.
RoxburghMConlonMBanksD (2012) Evaluating hub and spoke models of practice learning in Scotland, UK: a multiple case study approach. Nurse Education Today32(7): 782–789.
40.
RyanATaggartLTruesdale-KennedyM. (2014) Issues in caregiving for older people with intellectual disabilities and their ageing family carers: a review and commentary. International Journal of Older People Nursing9(3): 217–226.
41.
Scottish Executive (2002) The Same as You? A Review of Services for People With Learning Disabilities. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office.
42.
TaggartLTruesdale-KennedyMRyanA. (2012) Examining the support needs of ageing family carers in developing future plans for a relative with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities16(3): 217–234.
43.
WalkerCWardC (2013) Growing older together: ageing and people with learning disabilities and their family carers. Tizard Learning Disability Review18(3): 112–119.
44.
WhiteKHKingE (2015) Hub and spoke model for nursing student placements in the UK. Nursing Children and Young People27(2): 24–29.
45.
ZarbG (1992) On the road to Damascus: first steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap & Society7(2): 125–138.
