/ Full archive

Masterclass: The clinical doctorate model – Enabling Practitioner Research

innovation

Monday 15th May 2017, 14.00 – 15.30, Lansdowne Campus

This masterclass will be presented by Professor Vanora Hundley, Deputy Dean for Research and Professional Practice, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences. The development of a clinical PhD studentship utilises the opportunity to bring in research income, while developing a bespoke educational opportunity that is attractive to employers and directly relevant to practice. Professor Hundley’s clinical doctorate model has been recognised nationally as an example of excellent practice which facilitates Knowledge Exchange and enhances future research collaborations.

This is part of the Leading Innovation Masterclasses series.

There are two other masterclasses in May: ‘Developing Interdisciplinarity’ with Professor Barry Richards, and ‘Benchmarking your students’ digital experience’ with Jisc’s Sarah Knight.

Find out more about these and book a place at the following link:
Leading Innovation – Masterclasses

Pre-award Omnibus Day & Your FDOs before Easter

The Funding Development Officers (FDOs) will be delivering Pre-award workshops as part of the RKE Development Framework on Thursday 13 April.

These Pre-award workshops are:

  1. Getting Started with Applying for Research Funding;
  2. Pre-award Finances;
  3. BU Processes for Applying for Funding.

If you haven’t already booked and would like to attend, please click on the links above and book yourselves in!

Therefore, on 13 April, your FDOs will have very limited, if no access to emails. After this date, BU is closed for the Easter long weekend.

Please consider this when you request our support this week.

Wishing you and your families a Happy Easter!

Writing a Justification of Resources Session 4th May 2017

Funding opportunities

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO are holding a session on ‘Writing a Justification of Resources’. The session will provide an overview of the Justification of Resources document, and will offer tips for writing this section of the application form. Examples of effective Justifications of Resources will be provided.

Date: Thursday 4th May

Time: 10:00-11:30

Venue: Talbot Campus

Book your space via the RKE Development Framework page for this event.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

BRIAN Upgrade – May 2017

BRIAN

BRIAN will be upgrading to a new version next month. The main improvements from this upgrade include:

  • New Impact Tracking Module
  • New Homepage
  • More User Friendly Navigation

These new and improved features will make BRIAN easier and simplier to use for everyone, whilst also providing a valuable tool to academics helping them record the impact of their research

All relevant guidance notes and video guides on the Staff Intranet will be updated in due course. If you need any help using the new system or if you encounter any problems after the upgrade, please do send an email to BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk and a member of staff will be able to assist you.

BRIAN training sessions are also available:

  • Tuesday 25th April 2017
  • Thursday 15th June 2017

With further dates planned. If you are interested to book on to any of these training sessions, please click here to book on!

In the meantime, if you do have queries relating to the upgrade, please get in touch with BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk

Vicious cycle: the ‘troublemakers’ tackling sexism in elite sport.

Published in The Conversation: Carly Stewart and Jayne Caudwell, referring to recent incidents in British cycling and drawing from women’s autobiographies, offer a critique of post-feminism: https://theconversation.com/vicious-cycle-the-troublemakers-tackling-sexism-in-elite-sport-75687

A number of top women cyclists have claimed, publicly, that they have experienced and/or witnessed sexism in their sport. As a consequence, some of these women have been branded troublemakers. Given this backlash, we argue for an increased awareness of the post-feminist filters through which we view elite sport, and we suggest that such an awareness might ensure that women who do speak out about sexism are not dismissed as individual troublemakers.

Autobiographies by elite sportswomen, and sportsmen, provide detailed accounts of the everyday lived experiences of the culture of competitive sport. These testimonies are often ignored. And yet, they throw light on the practices that constitute gender relations within the win-at-all-cost world of international sport.

The autobiographies of top cyclists Nicole Cooke – The Breakaway, and Lizzie Armistead – Steadfast provide rich description (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011) of how those in powerful decision-making positions in British cycle propel the system of gender inequality.

In our article, we argue that the notion of post-feminism contributes to a lack of attention to sexism:

“In recent years, post-feminism has been linked to an increase in the visibility of female athletes in the sporting media. Female athletes are often (self-) represented as strong and resistant to gendered limitations. This reinforces their seemingly abundant opportunities for liberation and upward mobility in elite competitive sport.

And so post-feminism demands that successful high-profile female athletes embody the normative signifiers of heterosexual femininity and competitive advantage. Many do – and their achievements as both “pretty and powerful” are hailed by post-feminism as proof of equal opportunity in western societies …

However,

… for critical feminists, the warning is that when individual women “can have it all” we are not actually combating systemic gender inequalities. This is because the idea and actuality obscure the subtle, lived reality of everyday sexism. The idea that women can have it all ends up reassuring people that feminism is no longer necessary. Problems are turned into stories about conflict between individuals, a tactic used to disparage feminism and to silence voices that divulge details of discrimination and abuse. All the while, the faults in the system go unaddressed.”

 

 

Vicious cycle: the ‘troublemakers’ tackling sexism in elite sport – republished from The Conversation

British Cycling has delivered some of the UK’s most stunning sporting triumphs over the past decade. But success has brought scrutiny – alongside parliamentary committee hearings about mysterious jiffy bags and reports of a slack approach to governance has been a relentless undercurrent of stories and testimony about sexism in the sport. The Conversation

Most memorably perhaps, Jess Varnish went public with allegations against British Cycling technical director Shane Sutton in 2016. She claimed he had dropped her from the squad and told her “to go and have a baby”. He denied saying this.

Two years before this, gaining less public attention, Nicole Cooke documented with meticulous detail the sexism encountered throughout her international cycling career in her autobiography The Breakaway. And in evidence given to a Select Committee hearing, the road race gold medal winner from the Beijing Olympics said she had been branded a troublemaker. Both Cooke, and track cycling star
Victoria Pendleton have spoken out in support of Varnish’s integrity and against the culture that became established in their sport.

Frustration

That stack of evidence will only grow now that former road world champion and London Olympics silver medalist, Lizzie Armistead has raised the issue in her upcoming autobiography Steadfast. She includes the uncomfortable admission that she was perceived as the “plaything” of male cyclists at a party when she was a 19-year-old hopeful.

Perhaps more tellingly, however, you can also feel her reluctance to tackle the issue of sexism and a desire to set apart sporting achievement from that context. In an interview with the Guardian, she said:

I want to be world champion again, and that is the best way for me to represent my sport. Win it fiercely, win it impressively and excitingly. The equivalent man isn’t sat at every interview defending his sex, so I don’t feel that’s what I have to do.

This is a critical point about what it means to be a successful female athlete and to publicly tell a story of sexism in your sport.

Post-feminist sport

Western contemporary culture has become defined in part by so-called “post-feminism”. We can best describe this as a kind of popular feminism where the idea has emerged of the “pretty and powerful” woman. Perhaps the iconic moment in the construction of this archetype came with the 1990s pop group The Spice Girls. The concept they popularised of “girl power” usefully illustrates the overemphasis on individual women’s so-called “empowerment”.

In recent years, post-feminism has been linked to an increase in the visibility of female athletes in the sporting media. Female athletes are often (self-) represented as strong and resistant to gendered limitations. This reinforces their seemingly abundant opportunities for liberation and upward mobility in elite competitive sport.

And so post-feminism demands that successful high-profile female athletes embody the normative signifiers of heterosexual femininity and competitive advantage. Many do – and their achievements as both “pretty and powerful” are hailed by post-feminism as proof of equal opportunity in western societies as well as in elite competitive sport.

For critical feminists, the warning is that when individual women “can have it all” we are not actually combating systemic gender inequalities. This is because the idea and actuality obscure the subtle, lived reality of everyday sexism. The idea that women can have it all ends up reassuring people that feminism is no longer necessary. Problems are turned into stories about conflict between individuals, a tactic used to disparage feminism and to silence voices that divulge details of discrimination and abuse. All the while, the faults in the system go unaddressed.

We can argue that elite female athletes are offered freedoms and individual choice at a cost – to their own integrity and to a broader, collective feminist politics. Such a process promotes individual choice, causing us to overlook the practices and cultures that propel the systems of gender inequality in sport. British Cycling has emerged as a useful reminder of this dynamic and, equally, those who are speaking up are a useful reminder that so-called “troublemakers” are exactly what is needed to challenge it.

Risk and reward

There is a cost. There are considerable cultural expectations for female athletes to fulfil the “pretty and powerful” post-feminist ideal. Athletes who break these conventions are taking a personal and professional risk. At the very least, they may limit their post-career marketability.

In her autobiography, Cooke challenged post-feminist sentiments. Instead, she drew from a more traditional feminism to offer a critique of how the structures of elite competitive sport treat women athletes as not equal to their male counterparts. Cooke, we suggest, is an unusual voice of active feminism in sport. Her autobiography can be viewed as a political intervention to break the cycle of silence surrounding sexism and an important model for how to deal with gender trouble in sport. Her example may well have paved the way for Varnish, Pendleton and Armistead to speak out.

Feminism’s dilemma really lies in the popularity of post-feminist ideas among women and girls who incorporate them into their sporting experience. We should be aware that feminist advocates and role models might be as unpopular with young women as they are with some men. The “pretty and powerful” post-feminist success story is more palatable and less troublesome.

If Cooke’s story had gained the traction it deserved, then we might not have been so surprised by the allegations from Varnish. Cycling – and women’s sport more broadly – would benefit from a conscious awareness of the post-feminist filters through which we all view it. Such awareness might ensure that women who do speak out about sexism are not drowned out or dismissed as individual troublemakers.

Carly Stewart, Senior Academic in Sociology of Sport, Bournemouth University and Jayne Caudwell, Associate Professor Leisure Cultures, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Workshop: Building resilience in Research and Knowledge Exchange 27/4/17

Funding opportunities, Knowledge Exchange, Research Integritiy

Professor Heather Hartwell will be delivering a workshop on April 27th 2017 that will help participants gain insight into how it is possible to build resilience in the area of Research and Knowledge Exchange.

This session will explore how it may be possible to build resilience in the area of research and knowledge exchange, where rejection for funding and from publishers is common. The speaker will offer their views of how resilience can be built and how to overcome obstacles. There will be the opportunity for discussion around the topic.

For those interested in booking onto the course, please follow the link here.

If you would like further information about the workshop, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk)

 

NIHR Grant Applications Seminar & Support event is coming to Bournemouth 28th June 2017 – book now

Funding opportunities

RKEDF logo - banner

RKEO are delighted to announce that the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Grant Applications Seminar & Support Event run by the NIHR Research Design Service South West (RDS-SW) is coming to BU.

The session is being held as part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, and will offer some insights into what NIHR are looking for in grant applications to their schemes. You’ll hear from NIHR RDS advisers on what makes a good grant proposal, and from Simon Goodwin, Research for Patient Benefit Programme Manager for the South West.  The afternoon session will consist of one-to-one appointments for those who would like to discuss their own proposal with Simon and/or an RDS adviser.  The session is open to academics from all Faculties, and clinicians in the local health service wishing to pursue research in the fields of health and social care.

Date: Wednesday 28th June 2017RKEO RKE NIHR

Time: 10:30-16:00 (please note that 1:1 appointments are available between 13:45-16:00)

Venue: Fusion Building, Talbot Campus

How to book: Registration is FREE and lunch will be provided. Places are limited and will be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Find out more and register.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

Your RED record – remember to check and keep this up to date.

Awarded & submitted bids

Just a quick reminder for you to check your RED record regularly – no not this one! 

 

To ensure we have all your Research applications and status of bids recorded correctly (awarded, unsuccessful etc.) – please check both your records as PI and Co-I. Any anomalies please let your respective Funding Development Officer (for pre-award records) or Project Delivery Officer (for awarded records) know so we can correct them.

Please note that only records for externally funded applications can be recorded and these must be for when you were at Bournemouth University (including any that were officially transferred to BU when you started).  Also, these are only when you were identified as a PI or Co-I on the submitted application or awarded contract.

New Research Project – Staying Active and Independent for Longer (SAIL)

Professor Ann Hemingway (FHSS) and Professor Adele Ladkin (FM) have recently been successful in gaining EU funding (2 SEAS strand) for a project entitled Staying Active and Independent for Longer (SAIL).  This is a three and a half year project piloting eleven different social innovations in three countries focused on helping older people to stay active and independent for longer. The project partners come from the public sector, third sector, universities and SME’s, and include the following.

Coastal regions in the 2 Seas Area have to deal with specific challenges in relation to ageing as they are confronted with a particular mix of ageing people. This not only includes local elderly, but also the influx of ageing newcomers and tourists of an increasing average age. As this population puts pressure on health and social care systems, it is essential to enable them to stay active and independent for longer, to improve their wellbeing and quality of life to reduce costs and pressures on care systems.

Professor Hemingway (FHSS) and Professor Ladkin (FM) at BU are running the international feasibility study for this multi million pound project.  This project represents cross-faculty research success combining public health and tourism expertise at BU.

 

Health & Wellbeing in the 21st Century – it’s your responsibility 23rd May 2017

On Tuesday, 23rd May 2016, BU’s Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) will be hosting a Sandpit event on Health & Wellbeing.

Which means…?

We’re seeking to come up with novel research which addresses challenges in health & wellbeing. With increasing pressure on the NHS, we need to consider how we can take responsibility for our own health & wellbeing. Potential areas to address this challenge may include but are not limited to, digital health & technology (apps, devices), sport, healthy diet & exercise, legal considerations (i.e. your body your choice), media, psychology, social care etc.

So, who should attend?

We want anyone who thinks they might have something to contribute. We will also be inviting relevant external attendees to contribute to the day.

What do I need to prepare in advance? What will the sandpit entail?

Absolutely nothing in advance. During the session, you’ll be guided through a process which results in the development of research ideas. The process facilitates creativity, potentially leading to innovative and interdisciplinary research ideas. These ideas will be explored with other attendees, and further developed based on the feedback received.

What if I don’t have time to think about ideas in advance?

You don’t need to do this but it will help. Attendees will come from a range of backgrounds so we expect that there will be lively conversations resulting from these different perspectives.

What about afterwards? Do I need to go away and do loads of work?

Well… that depends! The interactive day will result in some novel research ideas. Some of these may be progressed immediately; others might need more time to develop. You may find common ground with other attendees which you choose to take forward in other ways, such as writing a paper or applying for research funding.

What if my topic area is really specific, and doesn’t really relate to health?

Your contribution will be very welcome! One of the main benefits of this type of event is to bring together individuals with a range of backgrounds and specialisms who are able to see things just that bit differently to one another.

So, is this just networking?

Definitely not! It is a facilitated session with the primary intention of developing innovative research ideas, which also enables the development of networks. It gives you the opportunity to explore research ideas which you may develop over time, together with the chance to find common ground with academics from across BU and beyond.

So, how do I book onto this event?

To take part in this exciting opportunity, BU staff should complete the Application Form and return this to Dianne Goodman by Tuesday 2nd May. As places are limited, this will be assessed to ensure good mix of attendees with different perspectives. Places will be confirmed w/c 8th May 2017.

By applying, you agree to attend for the full duration of the event on 23rd May (c. 9:30 – 16:00). This event will be held in BU’s Executive Business Centre (EBC).

If you have any queries prior to submitting your application, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

This event is part of the Research Knowledge Exchange Development Framework.

HE Policy Update w/e 7th April

international

Higher Education and Research Bill: the Bill passed its third reading in the House of Lords this week with little fanfare. An amendment relating to the ‘transparency duty’ (publishing further information on applicants’ backgrounds for better WP policy targeting and transparent admissions) was moved but withdrawn. This followed reassurance from the government that they will require the Office for Students to consult on the transparency duty. Eight minor government amendments were agreed, full details can be read in Hansard. The Bill will reappear in the Commons after the Easter recess, when as noted in last week’s update, the opposition and cross bench amendments are expected to be removed.

Brexit: The Commons Select Committee for Exiting the EU released their report The Government’s negotiating objective: the White Paper. Wonkhe report that not all members of the committee agreed with the conclusions in the report. Pages 68-71 cover science and research and reiterate previous calls from the sector for the immigration system to support researchers and students and for the UK to continue to participate in Horizon 2020.

Tuition Fees: In a non-binding debate in the House of Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour) moved that the House of Lords regrets the 2016 changes to the tuition fee regulations and loan conditions which have worsened circumstances for some students, particularly WP and part time students. Lord Stevenson stated it is “virtually impossible to challenge what the Government are doing” and suggested that fee increases, the ending of maintenance grants, and introduction of income-contingent tax liabilities had not achieved what they had set out to do for the public purse whilst burdening students with ever-increasing debts. He asked for clarification on the “huge gap” in public finances the system was creating and explained that his motion would call on the Government to report annually to Parliament on the impact on the economy of increasing graduate debt, provide estimates of payback rates and an estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of the present system. Stevenson and other Lords also criticised the linking of fees to the TEF.

The voting was close and the motion to regret was agreed by the Lords.

Speaking for the Government Viscount Younger of Leckie expressed his disappointment about the vote and stressed that the Government’s policy intention remained to link fees to the quality of provision via the teaching excellence framework.

A second motion to regret has been tabled for Wed 26 April by Lord Clark of Windermere to move that the House of Lords regrets the introduction of tuition fees and removal of bursaries for NHS students.

Science Communication: The Science and Technology select committee have reported on their inquiry into science communication. The report notes that public interest in science is high and rising yet most people still lack a personal connection or understanding of science, and there is low trust in science journalism. The committee report concurs with the Stern recommendation for REF to synonymise impact with associated policy-making. Furthermore, the Government has abandoned the intended anti-lobbying clause in government contracts and grants because for research grants it sent the wrong message, discouraging instead of encouraging the widest and fullest possible science communication and engagement.

The full report examines communication of science, including through social media and reaching young people. It also tackles the misrepresentation of scientific results in the media. Highlighting inaccurate interpretations of statistics, and distortion of results to sensationalise the story as source of public suspicion. The report calls for government to ensure that a robust redress mechanism is provided for when science is misreported.

It also recommends exploring multiple aspects of diversity, instead of just gender, so young people have a wide range of role models to inspire them to pursue STEM careers. There is an interesting section (paragraphs 13-21) on outreach to schools and young people in relation to the STEM skills gap and whether science communication has a role to play in addressing the STEM gap particularly through redressing negative messaging.

Recruitment: The latest UCAS statistical release reconfirms the known drop in applications – UK students down by 4% (c.25,000), EU 6% down, international applications increase by 2%.

Apprenticeships: It’s been a busy news week for apprenticeships – the Apprenticeship Levy for business is now in force and the Institute for Apprenticeships was launched on Monday. It has been confirmed that degree apprenticeships will be regulated by HEFCE (QAA) through the Annual Provider Review process, with the quality of training provision inspected by Ofsted, except where the apprenticeship standard contains a prescribed HE qualification – this will be assessed through joint working (HEFCE/Ofsted).

A recent Commons select committee report on apprenticeships has criticised the government’s apprenticeship policy stating it will not resolve the skills gaps as it is not sufficiently focussed on specific sectors nor targets key regions where training is lacking. The Committee also warns that schools are still failing to promote non-university routes.

Technical and Further Education Bill: this Bill has been amended and passed by the Lords. The Lords debate noted improvements are needed in learner support when private providers fail, alongside clarity for targeting apprenticeships in the engineering, construction, IT skills shortage areas. The Bill will now return to the Commons. If you would like more

Other news:

The Times covers Exeter University’s online masters degrees – fees will be £18,000 (same fee for UK and international students).

Radio 4 broadcast A Degree of Fraud, which covered the contract cheating services that provide bespoke essays. UK Essays claim to have sold 16,000 essays during 2016. It is reported that students can purchase a guaranteed 2:1 essay within 12 hours for £450. The broadcast also recognises Lord Storey’s campaign for parliament to outlaw bespoke writing services. You may remember this was covered in an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill which was withdrawn following reassurance from Jo Johnson who has asked the QAA to take steps to combat the ‘essay mills’.

Wonkhe discuss Hobson’s potentially mobile international student survey and look at the positive and negatives of a branch campus with a nod to the Brexit context.

The Guardian presents case studies of two disabled students who are failing to complete their studies after the reduction in disability benefits. It highlights how the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a ‘gateway benefit’ meaning students that lose it are then ineligible to access other supports such as universal credit or carer’s allowance. It is recognised that students with mental health disabilities are particularly affected.

Lily Boulle, student at the University of East London, went to Citizens Advice for help and found she was “locked out” of the benefit system. “There’s absolutely nothing you can get as a student unless you have PIP. It doesn’t make sense.”

The Department for Work and Pensions said: “Disabled students… may be eligible if they need to take time out from studying due to their condition.”

The Equality Challenge Unit published experiences of gender equality in STEMM academia which expresses disadvantages experienced by women academics (more teaching and admin, less research time, less training, limitations due to caring responsibilities) and intersects the data with ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and age.

Deadline Extended: Machine Learning in Medical Diagnosis and Prognosis

conferences, international, open access, Publishing

The deadline has been extended to the 14th of April , 2017.

This is a call for papers for the Special Session on Machine Learning in Medical Diagnosis and Prognosis at IEEE CIBCB 2017.

The IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (IEEE CIBCB 2017) will be held at the INNSIDE Hotel, Manchester from August 23rd to 25th, 2017.

This annual conference has become a major technical event in the field of Computational Intelligence and its application to problems in biology, bioinformatics, computational biology, chemical informatics, bioengineering and related fields. The conference provides a global forum for academic and industrial scientists from a range of fields including computer science, biology, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, statistics, and engineering, to discuss and present their latest research findings from theory to applications.

The topics of interest for the special session include (but are not limited to):

  • Medical image classification
  • Medical image analysis
  • Expert systems for computer aided diagnosis and prognosis
  • Pattern recognition in the analysis of biomarkers for medical diagnosis
  • Deep learning in medical image processing and analysis
  • Ethical and Security issues in machine learning for medical diagnosis and prognosis

Up-to-date information and submission details can be found on the IEEE CIBCB 2017. The submission deadline is the 14th of April, 2017.

Please e-mail srostami@bournemouth.ac.uk with any questions.

What hospital catering could learn from the prison system – BU published in the Conversation

Knowledge Exchange

Jeff Bray, Bournemouth University and Heather Hartwell, Bournemouth University

Prisoners eat better than hospital patients in Britain. Our research found that prisoners consume around three times more calories than patients and their diet is more in line with government nutritional recommendations. The Conversation

Eating more isn’t always healthier, but when you consider that malnutrition is a big problem in hospitals, it can be. We found that the average male hospital patient consumes just 1,184 calories a day – even though the NHS recommends 2,500. Male prisoners, however, consume an average of 3,042 calories. The situation is similar for women. Female patients consume on average 1,134 calories (the recommended amount is 1,940). But female prisoners consume 3,007 calories, on average.

The patients’ food intake was measured three days before they were discharged from hospital, so we can be fairly sure that they weren’t consuming less due to ill health. And they weren’t consuming less because they were served fewer calories. All menus could provide for dietary recommendations, but it simply wasn’t eaten.

Malnourished patients have a weakened immune system, delayed wound healing and muscle wasting. There are also psychological effects from malnutrition including apathy and depression leading to loss of morale and the will to recover. Studies have also shown that inadequate nutrition can lengthen patients’ hospital stays by 50% (an average of six days) and triple mortality rates.

Hospitals face a number of difficulties in providing high-quality food. Dishes are prepared on a tight budget. They are cooked at a central hospital kitchen and often have to travel a considerable distance to the wards. But prison food is also prepared on a tight budget and often has to travel considerable distances from the kitchen to the prison wing.

Four years of data gathering

During our four-year study, we visited four prisons for men and two for women. In each, we carefully noted how food was prepared, delivered to the prison wing and served to the prisoners. We analysed the menu and interviewed prisoners and catering staff. We conducted four hospital studies with a similar method of data collection, which helped us to assess and compare the dietary intakes of hospital patients and prisoners. Through this we were able to identify the main differences in catering.

In hospitals, kitchen staff prepare the meals and hand them to porters who complete the delivery when they have time, between doing other tasks. Once the food reaches the ward, the responsibility for serving the food is handed to nurses. The various teams have to cooperate to ensure that food is delivered while it’s still fresh. However, providing food is not the main priority of a hospital. We noted tension between catering staff, who cared about food quality, and medical staff, who didn’t consider it a priority.

At least you’ll be well fed.
Adrian Reynolds/Shutterstock.com

We found that the food prepared by hospital and prison kitchens – although not fine dining – has a similar nutritional quality and is presented in a similar manner. (Typical fare might include meat and two veg, a pudding or yogurt, and a piece of fruit.) In prison, food was transported quickly and food quality was maintained up to the point of service to the prisoners. The food arrived hot, comparatively fresh and could be consumed immediately without distractions. By contrast, hospital food was delayed between kitchen and patient.

A fragmented process

In the hospitals that we studied, getting food from the kitchen to the patient was a fragmented and badly coordinated process. Meals were often delayed and disrupted by medical ward rounds, tests and treatments.

The result of these delays? Food was left for too long in warming trolleys prior to being served. Hot food cools down and cold food warms up to the temperature of the ward. Food dries out and discolours. Meat curls and gravy congeals. Compared with prisons, the temperature, texture and appearance of food were all worse in hospitals by the time the food was served. Nutrients may also have diminished and the food became less palatable. Differences that are likely to account, at least in part, for the marked difference in intake between prisoners and patients.

But this is not inevitable. Delays could be reduced. Hospitals could adopt a more coordinated approach and have a dedicated team responsible for the preparation, delivery to the ward and service to the patient. The team responsible for catering would not have the conflicting priorities that clinical teams have. Although a few hospitals do have a dedicated catering team that delivers food directly to the patient, this is the exception, not the rule.

In many hospitals, nutrition is often an afterthought. Priority is given to medical tests and treatments and often ignores the role that food plays in improving the patient’s health. One governor told us that if meals were delayed or missed in prison there would be a riot.

Jeff Bray, Principal Academic Consumer Behaviour, Bournemouth University and Heather Hartwell, Professor, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

*Spaces available – MSCA 2 day Bid Writing Retreat – 18th and 19th of April

Training

Places are still available for the two-day bid writing retreat on 18th and 19th April – book in now!

 

As the European Commission celebrates the support of over 100,000 researchers through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, RKEO are pleased to confirm our arrangements for supporting this high profile call in 2017.

Support

  • There will be a two-day bid writing retreat on 18th and 19th April and, subject to demand, this will be repeated on 4th and 5th July, with bookings now open
  • Materials are already available on the MyBU Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework Community and will be extended as more materials are made available for the 2017 call
  • External bid writing support, where appropriate
  • Timeline

    As this is a highly popular call, RKEO need to carefully manage the flow of work within RKEO but also for all your colleagues, who work together, to ensure that each application is approved and submitted correctly.

    The call will open on 11/04/17, when further information will be posted on this blog.

    Please ensure that the Intention to Bid is submitted to RKEO by 30/06/17. You can, of course, let us know earlier than this date that you intend to apply, so that we can provide you, and your potential fellow, with as much support as possible, right up to the closing date of 14/09/17. It is expected that early drafts will be sent to RKEO at the beginning of August, allowing time for all those involved to manage their workloads.

    Communication

    Once we know that you are thinking of applying, even before submitting the Intention to Bid, we can keep you up to date with announcements from the funder and other sources of help and support.

    If you are considering applying and would like to receive updates, please contact Dianne Goodman, RKEO’s Funding Development Team Co-ordinator, so that we can register your interest and provide useful information, such as  the indicative timetable for actions prior to submission. If you are ready to submit your Intention to Bid, you can do this now, via Dianne. The allocated Funding Development Officer can then contact you.

    If you have any queries or comments about this scheme, please contact Emily Cieciura, RKEO’s Research Facilitator: EU & International