ArticleBMC health services research2025
Feasibility of a standardised National induction programme for Home Support Workers (HSWs) in the Republic of Ireland? Results from a National consultation with stakeholders from the sector.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome Support Workers (HSWs) make a valuable contribution to healthcare globally. They are the most rapidly increasing workforce in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) however no standardised National Induction Programme (NIP) exists to ensure consistency in their role. The primary aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a NIP for HSWs in ROI. To inform the primary aim, we also explored the scope of practice of HSWs by examining the tasks that should be part of their role/the areas where they should provide support to patients/clients. Advantages, disadvantages and barriers to the implementation of a standardised NIP were explored.
methodsA mixed-methods design was used, combining online surveys and one-to-one interviews/focus groups. Three separate surveys were administered via the Zoho platform to (1) Key Stakeholders, (2) Induction Programme Providers (IPPs), and (3) HSWs. The surveys explored the feasibility of a standardised NIP, HSW roles/scope of practice, as well as advantages, disadvantages and barriers to its implementation. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with Key Stakeholders to further explore these topics. Qualitative data were analysed by thematic analysis, while quantitative data were analysed descriptively in Microsoft Excel.
resultsA total of 38 Key Stakeholders, 11 IPPs, and 18 HSWs participated in the online surveys. Eight Key Stakeholders participated in one-to-one interviews or focus groups. All (100%) Key Stakeholders and 91% of IPPs agreed that a NIP with standardised content is feasible for HSWs across both public and private sectors. The majority of participants felt that a standardised NIP should be mandatory for all HSWs, including current staff. Thematic analysis found a high level of consensus on the feasibility, necessity for, and potential benefits of a NIP. Specific knowledge and skills requirements were identified across a wide range of theoretical and clinical areas.
conclusionsThe study reports a high level of consensus around the feasibility and importance of a NIP for HSWs, which would improve the quality and consistency of care across this sector. A proposed curriculum for a standardised NIP based on this study was developed and will be presented in a subsequent publication to follow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.