In elite sports, a case is increasingly made for the structural inclusion of what we label as planned disruptions. These are structured and deliberate training activities whereby athletes are exposed to increased and/or changing demands under controlled circumstances. Despite the growing body of evidence in support of planned disruptions (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2017), there is a lack of knowledge on which strategies coaches use in an applied context and why they use them. The present study, therefore, aimed at exploring the different types of planned disruptions high-performance coaches use and the desired outcomes of these disruptions. To this end, thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016) was used to analyze semistructured interviews with 9 talent development and elite-level coaches (M age = 42.9, SD = 8.3; 6 male, 3 female). Results indicated that coaches use a combination of 9 types of planned disruptions (i.e., location, competition simulation, punishments and rewards, physical strain, stronger competition, distractions, unfairness, restrictions, and outside the box). These strategies were used to familiarize athletes to pressure, create awareness, develop or refine personal resources, and promote team processes. Three additional themes emerged, namely, the surprise use of planned disruptions, periodization, and the impact on personal relationships. The findings in the present study can guide further applied and theoretical explorations of the use of planned disruptions.
DOCUMENT
The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a resilience development intervention, set up around regular exposure to increased pressure. This intervention adopted a quasi-experimental design, delivered within an elite female basketball academy. The mixed methods evaluation combined individual and team resilience measures with semi-structured interviews with athletes and coaches. Quantitative results demonstrated that the intervention was effective in reducing team level vulnerabilities. Qualitative evaluations indicated that the intervention led to increased awareness, emerging leadership, stronger communication channels, and the development and execution of collective plans. Furthermore, potential avenues for intervention improvement were also addressed.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND Seclusion is an intervention widely used in Dutch mental health care. The intervention can be effective in acute situations to avert (further) aggression or self-harm. However, seclusion is also a controversial intervention that may not have any positive effect with regard to symptom improvement. In general patients report negative effects after being secluded e.g. anxiety and having had a traumatic experience.The main reason for seclusion is not manageable aggressive behaviour of a patient. Earlier studies reported several risk factors that may contribute to seclusion, regarding patients’ characteristics, but also with regard to staff characteristics, working protocols and unit characteristics. Because of unequivocally results there is the need for a longitudinal prospective study to examine staff- and unit determinants in association with seclusion.AIMS The objective of this study is to determine which nursing staff and unit characteristics are associated with seclusion following aggression in hospitalized adult psychiatric patients. We hope to create a predictive model to estimate the risk of seclusion on an acute psychiatric ward.METHODS We will conduct a prospective observational study on a closed psychiatric ward of an academic hospital. Patients are aged 18 – 65 years and are admitted when their psychiatric condition leads to an immediate threat to the patient themselves or their surroundings.All nurses on the ward are all qualified nurses and registered in the Dutch registration of healthcare professionals. They are trained every six months in techniques of verbal de-escalation and safe physical restraint. For both nurses and the patients baseline characteristics are monitored. Every shift (day, evening, night) data are gathered on the patients, nurses and unit. Data are retrieved from the electronic patient chart, including information of the Brøset Violence Checklist. Furthermore, the exchange of information among nurses is measured using the Grid instrument. Data will be analysed using multilevel regression analysis. Data will be collected for a period of 2 years, which started January 2013.RESULTS The primary endpoint in our study is the incidence of seclusion. As a secondary endpoint, the duration of the seclusion is measured. These endpoints are measured using the Argus registration system and will be linked to predictors of seclusion, with special focus on the nursing staff- and unit determinants.
LINK
