El reconocimiento de las lenguas indígenas

Using the method described above, two of the initial seven units were selected for the observations to take place upon. The wards selected had been given the code-numbers 12 and 31. Ward 12 is a 10-bed, secure Rehabilitation and Recovery inpatient ward. The staffing levels are five members of staff on the early shift, four on the late shift and one member of staff working on a mid-shift, which spans half the early and half of the late shift. During the night, the staffing levels are two qualified members of staff and two Health Care Assistances (HCAs). Ward 31 is a low secure ward within a Rehabilitation and Recovery service, it has 13 standard beds and one emergency bed. The staffing levels are five members of staff during the day, and three at night.

3.3.5.2.1 Observation protocol

3.3.5.2.2 Timing and quantity of Observations

Once the two wards had been identified, they were both contacted and a week for data collection arranged. On both wards, the data collection was arranged to be carried out on three consecutive days; on the first day, the main researcher went into the wards and explained the procedure to the patients, opportunity was given for people to ask questions and information sheets (see Appendix 8) were distributed to the patients. On the following two days, the observations were carried out. The possibility of the researcher returning if not enough data had been gathered was discussed and agreed upon. However, this was not necessary.

To ensure face validity and reduce bias of the observations, it was decided that the

observations should come from across the three periods within a day. To achieve this, the day was divided into three periods; ‘morning’ 0930hrs-1230hrs, ‘afternoon’ 1230hrs – 1530hrs and ‘evening’ 1530hrs -1830hrs. These time frames were used as guides. On the first observation session of the day, the earliest observations started was 09:30, the latest was 10:00. The greatest disparity in start time between the wards occurred on the afternoon session of the second day of observations; on ward 12 this started at 12:25, on ward 31 this started at 13:00. To ensure data was drawn from each time period, it was decided that the researcher would stop an observation period once 20 interactions had been observed. Had insufficient interactions been observed during the allotted time period, the researcher would have returned to the ward on a third day. Between each observation session, the researcher left the ward. The actual starting and stopping times for each observation are presented in Table (iii). All observation sessions fell within the time periods specified.

Ward Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 12 09:30- 1200 12:45- 15:10 15:30- 17:20 9:50- 11:40 12:25- 14:00 14:35- 17:00 31 09:45- 11:30 13:30- 15:10 15:35- 17:45 10:00- 12:15 13:00- 15:10 15:30- 17:45

Table (iii) Timings of observation periods.

Ward 12 was sampled first. On the first day of the agreed week, the main researcher took part in the morning meeting, during which the study was explained to patients. Two

researchers then spent time on the ward discussing how and where the observations should take place. This was piloted with both researchers for 20 minutes and then discussed. In light of this, a slight alteration was made to the method; instead of simply recording every time a new staff member or patient was involved in an interaction, the letters and numbers would be used to identify staff members and patients respectively (e.g. first staff member observed = SA, first patient observed = P1).

Within each unit, a number of communal areas were identified; three in all for both ward 12 and 31. Prior to the observations taking place, it was agreed in which order the observer would move between the communal areas in each ward. To ensure that the interactions were independent of one another, after every observation the researcher would move to the next area. The observer spent up to five minutes observing any one area, if no interactions occurred within that five minutes, ‘no interaction’ was recorded, and the reason why. The reasons were recorded as one of three possibilities:

• due to no staff being present. • no patients being present. • no one at all being present.

A recording of ‘no interaction’ did not count towards the 120 interactions per observation session.

When an interaction occurred between a participating member of staff and patient, the following steps were carried out:

The interaction was recorded verbatim, including not only what was said and done, but also available information on body language and tone.

The interaction was coded using the tool.

Depending on which codes were assigned to the interaction, it was classed as positive or negative. Positive interactions were those that received codes which are considered to

support recovery, and those that received codes which are considered to hinder recovery were classed as negative.

After an interaction had been observed, the researcher moved onto the next area and the timer was re-started.

This dichotomous coding permitted the Chi-Square analysis to be used. If the researcher felt unsure about which code should be used, the interaction was left un-coded and this was done after the observation period was finished. The interactions were recorded on a matrix with five minute slots, and a space for the codes to be written and whether the code was positive or negative (see Appendix 13 for a blank version). If two dyads were interacting at the same time, the interaction between those physically closest to the researcher were recorded. The second interaction was not recorded. No personal data as to who had been involved in any interactions was kept, rather letters of the alphabet were used to denote different staff members and numbers used to denote different patients. This allowed the calculation of the number of different staff members and patients who had been involved in observed interactions. See Appendix 18 for examples of the interactions observed and recorded.

During the observations, the researcher aimed not to engage with either staff or patients. When the researcher was engaged, information was politely given that they were carrying out an observation for a piece of research which was aiming to develop a new tool. The researcher offered the PIS, or patient information sheet and explained it was perfectly acceptable for the researcher to be ignored. Any specific questions (such as who was being observed etc.) were answered. On some occasions, engagement was necessary. When this occurred, the researcher stopped timing and stopped observing for the duration of the conversation.

After the observation session had been completed, the researcher left the ward and coded any interactions left un-coded during the observation. After all of the observations and coding had been completed, the interactions were re-read and the codes and the exemplars re-checked to ensure that all had been recorded and coded satisfactorily