Brief health promotion in urgent care centres: a qualitative study of patients’ and nurse practitioners’ attitudes
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice    

Brief health promotion in urgent care centres: a qualitative study of patients’ and nurse practitioners’ attitudes

Cindy Chacha-Mannie Advanced nurse practitioner, St Mary’s NHS Urgent Treatment Centre, University of Portsmouth and Care UK, Portsmouth, England
Ann Dewey Interim associate head of research, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England
Penny Daniels Hospital director, Care UK St Mary’s NHS Treatment Centre, Portsmouth, England
Saseendran Pallikadavath Lecturer, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England

As the number of people with long-term conditions who die prematurely rises, the need for health promotion has come to the fore. However, there is little evidence for how acceptable health promotion is for patients and service providers in nurse-led minor injury units, walk-in centres and urgent care centres.

The authors undertook a qualitative study with 204 patients with high-risk behaviours and 14 nurse practitioners to examine their attitudes to a brief health promotion intervention. More than 65% of the patients thought the intervention was a good idea and should become part of practice; less than 1% said it was inappropriate. The nurse practitioners stated that there are opportunities for brief health conversations, but had mixed views about conducting them in this setting.

The findings suggest that brief health promotion screening, advice, leaflets and referrals are acceptable in these settings. The authors recommend additional health promotion training, support and pragmatic policies to help nurse practitioners integrate health promotion into care provision.

Primary Health Care. 29, 6, 28-34. doi: 10.7748/phc.2019.e1517

Correspondence

gimmyjaycaddy@aol.com

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/writeforus

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more