A realistic evaluation of two aggression management training programmes

Whilst the training of healthcare staff is seen as a key element to the prevention and management of violence and aggression, questions remain as to the effectiveness of these programmes in preparing staff to apply this to clinical practice. To date there is a relative paucity of well-designed studies into the effectiveness of the training to prevent and manage violence and aggression in healthcare settings. Within this context a study was conceived to examine the effectiveness of two aggression management training programmes in preparing staff for clinical practice. In order to provide a meaningful and evidence-based evaluation of the two programmes, Pawson and Tilley's Realistic Evaluation model was adopted for use in this study. In keeping with the chosen methodology, data was collected using a combination of methods including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation of training. A total of 64 participants were eligible for inclusion in the study; which ran over the course of a calendar year. The research highlighted that training should have relevance to the staff group undergoing instruction. That training should be conducted wherever possible in staff groups, tackling real problems, with participants reflecting and learning from their experience and from each other. It should also provide measures of competency that describe both workplace and organisational outcomes and describe the requirements of assessment. That training should be engaging and integrate decision-making, planning, organization and skill building and cover a range of interventions. Most importantly, was the need to help staff transfer what they had learnt as part of training to clinical practice. These factors are brought together in a model of training devised as part of this study called the PROMPTS Aggression Management Training Model ©. As the first study to apply realistic evaluation in aggression management research, it was a good fit, particularly given the growing emphasis on understanding how context influences evidence-based practice. The strengths and limitations of the approach are considered, including how to operationalize it. This approach provided a useful interpretive framework with which to make sense of the multiple factors that were simultaneously at play and being observed through various data sources, and for developing explanatory theory about aggression management training and its implementation in practice