PDF (PhD Thesis) - UWE Research Repository - University of the ...

In my role as action researcher I was determined to influence an effective
change. I wanted my research to really make a difference. So when I was
asked by Jon a modern matron from the co-inquiry group, to attend her
hospital modern matron‘s meeting on 1 st March 06 where the focus would
be to produce a tool that would link reflecting with the Trust‘s quality
processes, I jumped at the opportunity to influence practice.
The meeting included several matrons from one Directorate within the
Trust and two Training Officers from the Staff Development Leadership
and Management Training department who were not clinically based but
worked across the Trust, having previously held nursing posts. The
modern matrons had identified a problem in their areas whereby staff
making clinical errors especially drug errors, were not necessarily learning
from those mistakes. It was difficult to track how the individual‘s practice
had improved. So they wanted to produce a reflective model of their own
which could be used by the person making the error and which would
incorporate some evidence of practice development while at the same
time provide information for the Trust about risk management. It was
hoped to produce a carbonated form that could be used across the whole
Trust and which the individual would keep in their portfolio. Furthermore,
some parts could be kept in work files or checked for patterns across the
Trust by the risk assessment team. The group decided to keep
anonymous the parts that would be sent to the risk assessment team so
that confidentiality was maintained.
I was asked to present various reflective models and I talked through the
pros and cons of each of them in relation to developing staff 49 . I argued
there was no perfect model and talked about each of the models strengths
and weaknesses in promoting and directing learning from experience. I
suggested key questions to include on this new form. In particular, all the
models focused on the individual and there was very little about the
49 These were Johns‘ models versions 5, 9, 10,14 (1994-2004) Gibbs 1988, Atkins and
Murphy 1993, Taylor‘s 2000, Holm & Stephenson‘s 1994, Driscoll‘s 1994 and Boud et al
1985
201