1

Healthcare Workers

Date of Submission

Prepared for:

Full Name of Recipient, Job Title, and Name of Organization

Prepared by:

Your Name (as in IC/Passport)

E-mail
 2

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A healthcare worker provides care and facilities directly to the elderly and the sick as

physicians, nurses, or assistant workers. Worldwide there are over 59 million healthcare

professionals. The World Health Organization (WHO) has proclaimed the years 2006 to 2015 as

‘the decade of health human capital’ recognizing the crucial position of health staff as “the most

important pool of resources for health.”

One of the most dangerous conditions for the Healthcare sector. Over time, employees of this

sector are subject to a range of diverse health and safety risks. In addition to physical risks such

as radiation and noise pollution, ergonomic problems, such as hard loading and lengthy service

hours, are often present. Long hours of service and work with shifts contribute to work stress.

There are many points of motion. We must dedicate more resources to education – not only

for ourselves but also for those working in the healthcare sector at various levels. Our approach

to prevention activities, for example, vaccines, demands particular care and can entail warfare.

How often do they go for training currently? There is a lack of education on healthcare workers’

risks globally, and we need to broaden the scale of the research from single-center studies to

multi-center analyses. This in itself could lead to measures intended to be implemented on a

broad scale. The hour ought to prioritize health care workers’ workplace health to ensure that

employees are properly educated and well. This report addresses healthcare workers’ training by

conducting an online survey and a questionnaire of 58 health care workers.

 3

1.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................2

0.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................3

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................4

1.1 Statement of Problem................................................................................................................4

1.2 Statement of Purpose.................................................................................................................5

1.3 Scope of Report..........................................................................................................................5

Figure 1...............................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Limitations of Report................................................................................................................6

1.5 Sources of Data Collection..............................................................................................................7

Figure 2...............................................................................................................................................7

2.0 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................8

2.1 Data Collection.................................................................................................................................8

2.2 Results...............................................................................................................................................9

Figure 3.............................................................................................................................................10

3.0 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................11

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................11

5.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................13

6.0 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................14
 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

If appropriately planned and applied, digital education will improve the health-related

workforce by providing training in remote places and enable healthcare staff to continue

learning. While 75% of CEOs worldwide say that a professional, prepared and adaptable

working force should be a government/business priority2, there is an increasing absence of

qualified and well-trained healthcare workers in many regions across the globe. To fight this

development, it has to be recognized that schooling is not over until people get involved in their

careers. Due to the constantly changing healthcare care market, innovations that are known to be

standard practice will dramatically alter within only a decade.

It is why caregivers must constantly monitor emerging technology to expand their

expertise and abilities – which ensures further education is not a good thing to do but an utter

requirement for any healthcare practitioner to deliver medical care with high quality. In this

report working in the department of labor, I seek to train healthcare workers to equip them with

enough knowledge and skills in their current profession.

1.1 Statement of Problem

The days of pure classical classroom instruction are long gone. The conventional solution

takes time off based on seminars, ensuring that not all employees have access to the same

educational material[ CITATION Fat08 \l 1033 ]. Our moment is the age of open, ongoing e-

learning. It enables the entire workforce to acquire the same degree of experience directly and
 5

enables each person to provide secure, efficient, and high-quality patient treatment. It will enable

me to conduct an online survey to account for the quality of training offered.

1.2 Statement of Purpose

Access to preparation, assistance, and appraisal for healthcare support workers; potential

deficiencies in training provision; and challenges and facilitators to adopting an applicable policy

in acute care are all investigated in this report.

The benefits of engaging in continuous education are clear: well-qualified employees, good

productivity levels, excellent credibility, optimized financial success, improved patient results,

and less infringement. The negatives are also clear: medical establishments can lose their experts

to other employers by not investing in their staff. And losing value will contribute to wasteful

use of the device, disappointed consumers, and unfulfilled patients, increasing costs, lack of

time, and loss of picture[ CITATION Ste14 \l 1033 ]. That poses the question: why does not each

medical establishment integrate continuous education into its daily quality landscape? Perhaps

the mental relationship between continuing education and staff, course charges, transport and

accommodation expenses, and more has yet to be achieved.

1.3 Scope of Report

The emphasis is increasing here on enhancing medical healthcare to guarantee greater

efficiency, greater connectivity, and more value for investment. Training programs to teach

practitioners and students formal approaches for improving their productivity have been

introduced in recent years[ CITATION Ste14 \l 1033 ]. For this scope, training on quality

improvement was described as any activities that specifically taught practitioners’ methods to

analyze and increase quality.

 6

Figure 1: Initiative to help 25 million people worldwide acquire the digital skills needed in a

COVID-19 economy.

Technical courses, including proof-based medicine, statistics, and leadership, were provided

to increase efficiency—these involved courses. Courses to change a particular condition or

direction are provided if materials on enhancement technologies were introduced that could also

be commonly used with other subjects.

1.4 Limitations of Report

All from one of three acute hospitals came to our report. However, we agree that all hospitals

are characterized and unique to individual institutions; we are adamant that preparation for this

segment of the staff would probably transcend organizational borders. Around the same period,

we have made conclusions from the teaching, service, and evaluation policies and processes at
 7

various locations about what policies perform effectively and the barriers to enforcing

policies[ CITATION Wil08 \l 1033 ]. We listened to those who served in older hospitals,

healthcare service professionals, and the other ward-based employees. The type and percentage

of the patients with cognitive impaired health services for elderly adults in the facility are

uniquely distinctive. However, with the increasing age, multi-morbidity, and acute healthcare

demands of patients, workers from other wards are more apt to express these experiences at least

some period.

1.5 Sources of Data Collection

Fifty-eight employees work for the elderly: 30 healthcare support workers and 24 people

leading or serving with them and four healthcare support worker training leads. The following

topics were covered in one-on-one semi-structured interviews: perspectives on training and

support; translation of training into practice; training, support, and evaluation policies; and the

challenges of applying them. Themes were discovered by analyzing the transcripts.

Figure 2: Distribution of responses by department and profession

 8

2.0 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

2.1 Data Collection

At each location of the project, the lead researcher introduced himself and presented the

report to guarded personnel during ward transfer meetings. Researchers clarified the analysis and

the involvement of these researchers, including privacy and secrecy reassurance, and answered

all questions. The researchers were not hospital or NHS personnel; they also clarified. A

participant’s details form and an interest form were left to prospective interviewees whether they

were happy to notify them regarding participation in the sample[ CITATION Duc07 \l 1033 ].

Whether they wanted to contact them. Interviews were held at the hospital, in private rooms on

or near the unit, after work hours. In addition, e-mail specifics of the analysis and interviews

were arranged via follow-up phone or e-mail to people with responsibilities for healthcare

support worker preparation at the organizational level. Fundamental field observations were

made and then attached to transcripts on all questions, which will support the analysis of the

results such as interruptions, interviewer nervously, time deficit.

The semi-structured interviews were performed using a subject guide that outlined the

subjects to be discussed, the key questions to be asked, and proposed prompts and probes. Many

of the interviews discussed the same subjects and asked the same questions, but they differed in

how they responded to the interviewees’ input. During interviews with healthcare service staff,

they were asked about the instruction they have earned, for example, “What training have you

received?” Was it voluntary?; what their thoughts on such training is, e.g., were there any

training sessions that always stuck with them? ; what kind of delivery do you find helps you the

best? ; were there some difficulties with accessing or doing any of the training? ; what helps or

hinders them from putting training into practice? The following questions were asked of ward
 9

supervisors and other experienced personnel who served with healthcare support workers: What

are your opinions on the training that the healthcare support workers here have received? Can

you believe the preparation scheme for the support staff has any deficiencies or weaknesses? In

reality, are there any challenges in incorporating the Trust’s support worker preparation

curriculum as expected in substantive fields, parts of the healthcare service population, and

delivery method? Patient policy on healthcare service worker recruitment, support, and appraisal

was the subject of interviews with hospital training leaders[ CITATION Jav12 \l 1033 ]. The

following are some of the questions: Could you explain the preparation that a new Healthcare

Support Worker will get before they start working at your Trust? Question: What is the duration

of the initial training period? Is there a need for preparation, or is it an option? Is the teaching

standardized or unique to healthcare service workers? Is there some ward-based teaching? What

format does training take? Examine what it entails; how is the evaluation of healthcare service

staff handled? What do you think the biggest obstacles are when it comes to educating the

support workforce?

2.2 Results

Healthcare staff appreciated induction preparation, but others found a shortage of solid

links with the reality of employment. The conclusion that more training is welcome is in line

with other analysis that shows that healthcare professionals and nurses favor more rigorous

training and support for workers, while both staff classes remain interested in blurred job

distinctions[ CITATION Mor15 \l 1033 ]. More importantly, functional instruction related to

coping abilities and care for people with cognitive disabilities were perceived. If those

educational needs are not fulfilled, the consequences for employee morality can be detrimental.

For example, an ethnographic analysis by dementia personnel has shown that healthcare
 10

professionals prefer to receive assistance from close-knit support groups, which disconnects

them from the team in the broader community. Residential care programs in the United States to

address dementia education have shown inconsistent outcomes, including struggles for

apprentices to carry out novel methods, discrepancies with previous experience, and pre-

conceived notions about the causes of dementia behavior.

Figure 3: Health workforce cultural competency interventions

Following induction preparation, job on awards could be recognized as particularly

difficult for new staff personnel without a supernumerary time shadowing a seasoned healthcare

worker. Underemployment at wards was an obstacle to healthcare service personnel who

originally were supernumerary and freed them from school. Ward administrators (who were

gatekeepers for the training of employees) had different passions and encouragement for some

extra work. Organizational culture has previously been described by the Council of Deans for

healthcare and places the personal advancement of health service staff with a low

priority[ CITATION OMa13 \l 1033 ]. Insufficient Registered Caregivers to be healthcare

mentors in all three hospitals were an obstacle to the availability of adequate assistance to

medical support personnel, assessments, and mentorship.

 11

3.0 CONCLUSION

Our research shows that better training and management will be welcomed because of the

public emphasis currently and unparalleled on recruiting, supporting, and evaluating healthcare

service staff. Education, service, and evaluation can be strengthened by an organizational

strategy that encourages and preserves worker support in healthcare education through

formalization and availability of resources on an ongoing basis and by retraining, and IT helps.

Implementation challenges are likely to be addressed in all foreign environments where

dependence on support personnel is enhanced. There is a possibility that some of the new policy

areas will escalate some of those problems.

While individual healthcare professionals’ obligation or continuing instruction and

evaluation lies with each other, our research has demonstrated that access to these training

courses is also organizationally defined[ CITATION Bar15 \l 1033 ]. This is how a survey of the

availability of support training for workers in our area has shown insufficient in-house training.

Similar challenges have been identified in respect of licensed nursing staff in continuous

professional growth. We contend that accountability should be with organizations rather than

with people, given institutional limitations and healthcare promoters.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The implementation of new and plans must consider the role and operation of employees

and the broader hospital environment. An analysis of comparable efforts to standardize

healthcare workers’ instruction revealed a misunderstanding of the tension between training and

increasing prejudice to employees, which showed that the material and the job conditions of

learning are not interconnected. The issues found in our research surrounding help and appraisal

may be exacerbated by a lack of exposure to this background. Also, before implementing the
 12

Care Certificate, our conclusions on the challenges in implementing organizational policies on

the assessment of healthcare aid workers suggest that the fulfillment of evaluations needed to

complete a Care Certificate may fail if the current monitoring and evaluation issues are not

resolved. An early national review of the introduction of the Care Certificate showed that certain

organizations were the most difficult part of the implementation to be able to perform

evaluations promptly.

By introducing a treatment certificate, healthcare providers may better use administrators

and arrange the evaluation and endorsement of skills[ CITATION Mor15 \l 1033 ]. Evidence

from the assessment of a nationwide healthcare support worker training plan in Ireland shows

that trainees feel more confident after completing the curriculum. The guidance states that

healthcare employees should also be evaluators provided that they undergo suitable preparation

and that organizations can safeguard their evaluators’ time. It offers an incentive for healthcare

aid staff to improve professionally, which may reduce the issue of evaluation deficit, even if

everyone might not welcome this extra burden.

 13

5.0 REFERENCES

Fatusi, A. O., Makinde, O. N., Adeyemi, A. B., Orji, E. O., & Onwudiegwu, U. (2008).

Evaluation of health workers’ training in the use of the partogram. International Journal

of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 100(1), 41-44.

Steege, A. L., Boiano, J. M., & Sweeney, M. H. (2014). NIOSH health and safety practices

survey of healthcare workers: training and awareness of employer safety

procedures. American journal of industrial medicine, 57(6), 640-652.

Williams, J., Nocera, M., & Casteel, C. (2008). The effectiveness of disaster training for health

care workers: a systematic review. Annals of emergency medicine, 52(3), 211-222.

Ducey, A. (2007). More than a job: Meaning, affect, and training health care workers. The

affective turn: Theorizing the social, 187-208.

Javanparast, S., Baum, F., Labonte, R., Sanders, D., Rajabi, Z., & Heidari, G. (2012). The

experience of community health workers training in Iran: a qualitative study. BMC health

services research, 12(1), 1-8.

Morgan, P., Simpson, J., & Smith, A. (2015). Health care workers’ experiences of mindfulness

training: a qualitative review. Mindfulness, 6(4), 744-758.

O’Malley, G., Perdue, T., & Petracca, F. (2013). A framework for outcome-level evaluation of

in-service training of health care workers. Human resources for health, 11(1), 1-12.

Barnie, B. A., Forson, P. K., Opare-Addo, M. N. A., Appiah-Poku, J., Rhule, G. P., Oduro, G., ...

& Donkor, P. (2015). Knowledge and perceptions of health workers’ training on ethics,

confidentiality, and medico-legal issues. Journal of clinical research & bioethics, 6(1).

 14

6.0 APPENDICES

Questionnaire

Gender: Male=40 (68.97%) / Female=18(31.03%)

Age: 25-70 Education level: PSLE=3 (5.17%) / A Level=18 (31.03%) / Diploma=20 (34.48%) /

Degree=15 (25.86%) / Master=2 (3.45%)

1. What are your views on attending training?

a. Very Good 40 (68.97%)

b. Average 10 (17.24%)

c. Poor 8 (13.79%)

2. How often do you go for training currently?

a. Daily 50 (86.21%)

b. Weekly 7 (12.07%)

c. Never 1 (1.72%)

3. What are the factors that would encourage you to come for training?

a. Our Training Facilities 4 (6.90%)

b. Our Guest Speakers 15 (25.86%)

c. Quality of training we offer 35 (60.34%)

d. None of the Above 4 (6.90%)

4. What are the factors that would discourage you from coming for training?

a. Family issues 6 (10.34%)

b. Poor Training facilities 2 (3.45%)

c. Other 50 (86.21%)

5. What types of training are you interested to enrol in?

 15

a. Competitive Training 32 (55.17%)

b. Natural healthcare training 18 (31.03%)

c. Patient handling 7 (12.07%)

d. Other 1 (1.72%)

6. What would be the ideal duration for our training?

a. One day 25 (43.10%)

b. Two Months 12 (20.69%)

c. 8 hours 15 (28.86%)

d. Other 6 (10.34%)

7. What incentives do you expect after completing the training successfully?

a. Gain Knowledge as a healthcare worker 40 (68.97%)

b. Improve Work performance 10 (17.24%)

c. Other 8 (13.79%)