DOCSLIB.ORG

CURRICULUM VITAE (Jan 2015)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CURRICULUM VITAE (Jan 2015) Professor Chris J Main M.A.(Hons); M.Phil., Ph.D; C.Psychol. F.B.Ps.S. Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psychology Keele University Clinical & Health Psychologist HPC Registration No. PYL 16208 Principal Academic Base Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre Keele University, Staffs , ST5 5BG. U.K. Tel +44 (0)1782 733922: (Sue Weir) Fax 44 (0)1782 733911 Date of Birth: 8th June 1947 Place of Birth: Edinburgh, Scotland. Academic and Professional Qualifications • M.A. (Double Hons) in Mental Philosophy, University of Edinburgh, 1970 and General, Experimental and Social Psychology, University of Glasgow, 1972. Second Class. • M.Phil. in Clinical Psychology. Edinburgh, 1974. • Ph.D. in the Faculty of Medicine. Glasgow, 1984. • Graduate member of British Psychological Society, 1976. • Elected Fellow of British Psychological Society, 1985. • Chartered Psychologist 1990. Previous Appointments: 1972 – 1974 Trainee Clinical Psychologist (Fife Health Authority) 1974 – 1976 Basic Grade Clinical Psychologist (Royal Edinburgh Hospital) 1976 – 1982 Senior Clinical Psychologist (Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow) 1982 MRC Research Fellow, Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery (University of Glasgow) 1982 – 1987 Principal Clinical Psychologist (Salford Health Authority) 1987 – 1994 Top Grade (Consultant) Clinical Psychologist (Salford Health Authority and Head of Dept. of Clinical Psychology, Hope Hospital) 1994 – 2002 Head of Dept. of Behavioural Medicine (Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust) and Consultant Psychologist, Manchester and Salford Pain Centre. 1982 – 1987 Hon. Research Fellow (University of Manchester) 1987 – 1997 Hon. Reader (University of Manchester) 1997 - 2003 Hon. Personal Chair, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manchester 2002 - 2003 Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust 1 2004 - 2005 Professor of Clinical and Occupational Rehabilitation, University of Manchester 2004 - 2005 Visiting Professor at Primary Care Science Research Centre, Keele University 2006 -2014 Professor of Clinical Psychology (Pain Management); Keele University Current Appointments Held: 2015- Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psychology, Keele University Authored Books, Monographs and Reports): There may be some omissions from the CV prior to 1995 1978 -1995 • Main CJ (ed) (1982) Clinical Psychology and Medicine: A behavioural Perspective. New York, Plenum Press • Main CJ (1982) New Approaches to the treatment of Pain: Report of Travelling Fellowship to N.America , Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, London • Main CJ (1984) Psychological factors in low back pain, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow • Parker H & Main CJ (1990) Living with Back Pain. Manchester, Manchester University Press 1995-2000 • Roland M., Waddell G., Klaber-Moffett J., Burton A.K., Main C.J., and Cantrill E. (1996) The Back Book. The Stationary Office, Norwich. • Kendall N., Linton S.L., and Main C.J. (1997) Guide to assessing psychological yellow flags in acute low back pain: risk factors for long term disability and work loss. Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee. Wellington, N.Z. • Main C.J. and Spanswick C.C. (2000) Pain Management: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Churchill Livingstone 2001-2005 • Roland M., Waddell G., Klaber-Moffett J., Burton A.K., and Main C.J. (2002) The Back Book (2nd Edition). The Stationary Office, Norwich. (This has now been translated into 20 languages). • Waddell G., Burton A.K., and Main C.J. (2003) Screening of DWP clients for risk of long-term incapacity: a conceptual and scientific review. Royal Society of Medicine Monograph; Royal Society of Medicine Press London. • Main C.J. Phillips C.J., Thomas A.P. and Farrell A (2004) THE WALES HEALTH WORK REPORT. Welsh Assembly Government (and Dept. for Work & pensions, U.K.) • Burton A.K., Bartys S., Wright I.A. and Main C.J. (2005) Obstacles to recovery from musculoskeletal disorders in industry. HSE Research Report RR323. H.S.E Books, H.M.S.O. Norwich. 2006-2010 2 • Phillips C.J., Main C.J., Buck R., Button L., Farr A., Havard L. and Brown G. (2006) profiling the community in Merthyr Tydfil: problems, challenges and opportunities. Wellbeing in Work Partnership Study I: Final Report. Cardiff, Wales Centre for Health. • Buck R., Phillips C.J., Main C.J., Barnes M.C, Aylward M. and Waddell G (2006) Conditionality in Context: Incapacity Benefit and Social Deprivation in Merthyr Tydfil. Cardiff, Wales Centre for Health. Report commissioned for the M.P. for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney • Wynne-Jones G, Jordan J, Glozier N, Main CJ, A systematic bibliography of the relationship between employee health and occupational performance, Final report, Report to the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF), September 2007 • Buck R., Varnava A., Wynne-Jones G., Phillips C.J., Farewell D., Porteous C., Webb K., Button L., Cooper C. and Main C.J. (2008). Health and well-being in Work in Merthyr Tydfill: a biopsychosocial approach. Stage 2: Final Report. Cardiff,Wales, Wales Centre for Health and Welsh Assembly Government • Main C.J. , Sullivan M.J. and Watson P.J. (2008) PAIN MANAGEMENT : PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL APPROACH IN CLINICAL AND OCCUPATIONAL SETTINGS. Edinburgh, Churchill-Livingstone(Elsevier) • Crome P.J., Main C.J. and Lally F. (Eds) (2008) PAIN IN OLDER PEOPLE . Oxford, O.U.P. • Wynne-Jones G, Mallen CD, Main CJ, Dunn KM, Sickness certification in primary care: A pilot survey of general practitioners, Report to Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust, November 2008 • Kendall N.A.S., Burton A.K., Main C.J. & Watson P.J. (2009) TACKLING MUSCULOSKETAL PROBLEMS. The Psychosocial Flags Framework: a guide for clinic and workplace. London, The Stationary Office. • Wynne-Jones G., Cowan J., Jordan J., van der Windt D., Glozier N. and Main C.J. (2009) EVALUATING YHE IMPACT OF BACK, NECK AND UPPER LIMB PAIN ON WORK PERFORMANCE AND ABSENCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Grant No. 251E07. London, British Occupational Health Research Foundation. • Main CJ, Keefe FJ, Jensen MP, Vlaeyen J, Vowles K (Eds) Fordyce’s Behavioral Methods for Chronic pain and Illness Republished with commentaries. 2014 Washington DC, IASP Press (WK), 2014 Journal letters (Since 1995) • Main C.J. (1996) "Letter to the editor: Invited point of view on Jurge et al" Spine 21:1064-1065 • Main C.J. (1997) “Point of view on Michel et al” Spine, 22:303-304 • Kendall, N., Main, C.J., Linton, S.J., Vlaeyen, J.W. & Nicholas, M.K. (1998) "Reply to Wallis et al. Pain 73 (1997) 15-22". Letters to the Editor. Pain:78 (223-225). • McCauley J., De Souza L., Sharma L, Robinson I., Main C.J. Frank A.O. (1996) “Describing race, ethnicity and culture in medical research. Self defined ethnicity is unhelpful” 313 (7054) 425-6. 3 • Fortune, D.G., Richards, H.L., Bowcock, S., Main, C.J. & Griffiths, C.E.M.(1999) What patients with psoriasis believe about their condition: A reply to Lanigan. Journal of the Academy of Dermatology, 41, 1: 283-284. • Price C., Williams A.C., Main C.J. (2001) Rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Review was of little help in selecting treatment. BMJ 323(7323) p1251-1252 • Richards H.L., Fortune D.G., Main C.J. and Griffiths C.E.M. (2003) “Stigmatisation and psoriasis” British Journal of Dermatology “149(1) 209- 211. • Hill J.C., Foster N.E., Main C.J. & Hay E.M. (2008) “In response to A randomised trial of behavioural physical therapy interventions for acute and sub-acute low back pain by George SZ et al Pain;140: 147-157”. • Foster N.E., Dunn K.M., Bishop A. and Main C.J. (2010) “Response to letter by Roelefs et al. Pain 150: 208-209. Book Chapters There are may omissions from the CV prior to 1995 1978-1995 • Main CJ and Waddell G (1982) Chronic Pain Distress and Illness Behaviour in Main CJ (ed) Clinical Psychology and Medicine: A behavioural Perspective. New York, Plenum Press Chap 1, 1-52 • Main CJ & Waddell G (1985) The communication of pain and distress in chronic orthopaedic conditions. In Current issues in Clinical Psychol Ed E. Karas, New York, Plenum Press • Main CJ (1987) Psychological approaches to the management and treatment of back Pain In Jayson MIV (Ed) The lumber Spine and Back Pain (3rd Edit) Chap 23, 435-456. Churchill-Livingstone, Edinburgh. • Main CJ, Parker H (1989) The evaluation and outcome of Pain Management Programmes for chronic low back pain. In Back pain: New approaches to Rehabilitation and Education. Ed Roland M, Jenner J. Manchester University Press, Manchester p128-156 • Main, CJ, Evans, Peter JD, Whitehead RC (1991) An investigation of personality structure and other psychological features in patients presenting with low-back pain: a critique of the MMPI. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the VIth World congress on Pain. Bond, MR, Charleton JE, Woolf CJ (Eds) Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. Chap 23: 207-217 • Main CJ (1992) Psychological Factors in chronic pain. Midlands Med. 19:8-9 • Main CJ (1993) The Psychology of low back pain. Occ Hlth Rev Sep-Oct 27- 30 1995-2000 • Benjamin S., Main C.J. “Psychiatric and psychological approaches to treatment of chronic pain: concepts and individual treatments” In TREATMENT OF FUNCTIONAL SOMATIC SYMPTOMS. Ed. Mayou R., Bass C., Sharpe M. (1995) Chap. 11: 188-213. Oxford University Press, Oxford. • Main C.J., Benjamin S. (1995) “Psychological treatment and the health care system: the chaotic case of back pain. Is there a need for a paradigm shift?” 4 In TREATMENT OF FUNCTIONAL SOMATIC SYMPTOMS. Ed. Mayou R., Bass C., Sharpe M. Chap. 12: 214-230. Oxford University Press, Oxford. • Main C.J., Burton K.A. (1998) “Pain Mechanisms”, in THE CHANGING NATURE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH. Ed. McCraig R., Harrington M. The Health & Safety Executive, Bootle. • Main C.J., Waddell G. (1998) “Psychological Distress” in G. Waddell BACK PAIN. Chap. 11: 173 – 186. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. • Waddell G., Main C.J. (1998a) “Beliefs about back pain” in G.
Recommended publications
  • Recommendations from the British Pain Society the British Pain

    Recommendations from the British Pain Society the British Pain

    Recommendations from The British Pain Society The British Pain Society has been contacted by several of its members for some guidance with regards to the running of Pain Clinics and Pain Interventional Lists in light of Covid-19 pandemic. A large proportion of pain doctors are anaesthetists who are still doing anaesthetic sessions and those who are doing full-time pain medicine and have an anaesthetic background are still better skilled in managing acute emergencies than the average doctor and allied healthcare professionals. These skills and expertise are vital in supporting our colleagues in intensive care and acute medicine who are at the frontline in caring for seriously ill patients with Covid-19 and we are prepared to be redeployed wherever we are needed. We are committed to put aside our routine clinical work to deal with a situation which is turning out to be a global emergency that needs to be tackled without compromise. It is our responsibility to look after our patients as well as ourselves in these exceptional circumstances. The British Pain Society is making the following recommendations so that we are prepared to deal with the pandemic and also ensuring that our patients are not inconvenienced. Please discuss with the relevant authorities at your respective hospitals and NHS Trusts to accommodate and adapt this to local needs and strategies. Routine clinics may be cancelled and no face-to-face appointments are to be carried out except for urgent cases, specifically: people with CRPS; acute prolapsed disc and cancer. Any patient visiting the Pain Clinic should be screened via telephone to rule out potential risk.
  • 10Pain Medicine

    10Pain Medicine

    Pain medicine Edited by Dr Matthew Brown and Dr Manohar Lal Sharma 10QI editor Dr Fay Gilder 10.1 Assessment and documentation in acute pain management 312 10.2 The use of gabapentinoids in the perioperative period 314 10.3 Non-medical prescribing for pain management 316 10.4 Managing epidural analgesia 318 10.5 Opioid use in chronic pain 320 Intrathecal drug delivery in the management 324 10.6 of cancer-related pain 10.7 Audit of pain management programmes 326 Continuing professional development and practice 328 10.8 improvement for pain medicine anaesthetists Medial branch block and radiofrequency denervation 330 10.9 for lumbar facet joint pain 4th Edition, September 2020 | www.rcoa.ac.uk | 311 10.1 Assessment and documentation in acute pain management Dr Matthew Brown, Ms Caroline Spence 10.1Royal Marsden Hospital, London Why do this quality improvement project? Suggested data to collect Developing methods to ensure and test the existence Preoperative phase indicators (if appropriate) of comprehensive and systematic documentation will 1. The percentage of patients for whom a perioperative benefit both the service and patients alike as it will assure acute pain management plan is created at the both continuity of care and robust clinical governance preoperative assessment clinic. and provide evidence of the delivery of high-quality holistic care. 2. The percentage of patients whose perioperative acute pain management plan is documented in an Background accessible manner in the clinical notes. Scoring and recording levels of acute pain represents a Inpatient acute pain management indicators fundamental facet of many quality assurance methods.
  • RCN Pain Knowledge and Skills Framework for the Nursing Team

    RCN Pain Knowledge and Skills Framework for the Nursing Team

    RCN Pain Knowledge and Skills Framework for the Nursing Team This publication is supported by the pharmaceutical industry RCN Pain Knowledge and Skills Framework for the Nursing Team Felicia Cox 1 (Chair), Karin Cannons 2 and Sarah Lewis 2 on behalf of the working party for the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Pain and Palliative Care Forum. Working Party Contributors Dr Donna Brown Denise Everett Sue Jenkins Janet Roberts Rachel Townsend Steve Ward Thanks to Professor Nick Allcock, Dr Emma Briggs, Amanda Cheesley, Dr Gillian Chumbley, Dr Fiona Duncan, Tanis Hand, Professor Alison Leary, Nik Payne, Professor Kate Seers, Professor Patricia Schofield, Gill Simon, Christine Waters, New Zealand Pain Society Nurses’ Interest Group, The Royal College of Nursing and all reviewers. No competing interests have been declared. Consultation This document was circulated widely and hosted on RCN webpages during the one month consultation period. The circulation list included RCN Fora, Royal Colleges, Professional Colleges, organisations supporting people with pain and specialist pain nursing networks in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand. Endorsement This document is endorsed by the British Pain Society. Dissemination plan The nursing co-ordinator will be responsible for dissemination to professional and patient organisations and ensuring that the current document version is available for download from RCN webpages. Previous versions will be archived adhering to RCN policy. Supported by an educational grant from Grünenthal Ltd UK. This publication is supported
  • Standards of Good Practice for Spinal Interventional Procedures in Pain Medicine

    Standards of Good Practice for Spinal Interventional Procedures in Pain Medicine

    British Pain Society and Faculty of Pain Medicine of the Royal College of Anaesthetists Standards of Good Practice for Spinal Interventional Procedures in Pain Medicine April 2015 To be reviewed February 2018 the british pain society 2 BritishPainSocietyandFacultyofPainMedicineoftheRoyalCollegeofAnaesthetists Published by: The British Pain Society 3rd floor Churchill House 35 Red Lion Square London WC1R 4SG Website: www.britishpainsociety.org ISBN: 978-0-9561386-7-5 © The British Pain Society 2015 StandardsofGoodPracticeforSpinalInterventionalProceduresinPainMedicine 3 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Consent 4 3 Preparation and identification of patients 6 4. Environment and facilities 6 5 Anticoagulation 7 6 Sedation 7 7 Assistance 7 8 Fluoroscopy 8 9 Infection Control 9 10 Record keeping 11 11 Follow-up and discharge planning 12 12 References 14 13 Working party 17 14 Conflicts of interest 19 4 BritishPainSocietyandFacultyofPainMedicineoftheRoyalCollegeofAnaesthetists 1 Introduction This document describes the standards of good practice for pain specialists carrying out spinal interventional procedures in pain medicine as recommended by the British Pain Society (BPS) and the Faculty of Pain Medicine of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (FPMRCA). This document also defines the facilities required in order to safely carry out these procedures. This document however, does not serve as critical analyses of published evidence. Interventional procedures are used widely to investigate and treat pain, caused by structures in and around the spine and other parts of the body. These procedures should not be undertaken in isolation and should include the support, guidance and decision making of an interdisciplinary team. Furthermore, these procedures should be undertaken in conjunction with rehabilitative interventions designed to reduce disability and enhance maximum improvement in quality of life.1 The BPS and the FPMRCA recognise that clinicians from other medical disciplines perform spinal interventions.
  • Pain Education E-Book British Pain Society Honours

    Pain Education E-Book British Pain Society Honours

    W A R W I C K RESEARCH IN NURSING Warwick Research in Nursing Newsletter D i r e c t o r : Professor Kate VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2 M A R C H 2 0 1 8 - S E P 2 0 1 8 S e e r s OUR RESEARCH Pain Education e-book THEMES: Professor Kate Seers has been involved with find it useful. http://ebooks.iasp-pain.org/ Patient & Public colleagues in developing a e-book as part of pain_education Involvement the International Association for the Study of Experience of Health Care Pain’s Global Year of Excellence in Pain Kate and Dr Fran Toye also led a webinar Education. describing the resource and discuss how it Person Reported Outcomes could be used. https://www.youtube.com/ Translating Knowledge into The aim is to help educators include watch?v=SKlK0zi-tJw Practice qualitative research in pain education. The e- book is free to download. We hope you will Contact: Kate Seers This newsletter presents selected highlights of our research. For details of the full programme British Pain Society Honours please see our website. INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Nursing Scholarship 2 European Nursing 2 World Congress on 2 Pain Publications 3 UK WOLLF Patient 3 Experience Cochrane Colloquium 4 Kirstie Haywood 4 Professor Kate Seers had a double honour at through her work for the Society.” Dr Gill the British Pain Society’s Annual Scientific Chumbley and Dr Emma Briggs read her Website address: Meeting in May this year. She delivered an citation. http:// invited plenary lecture on “Chronic Pain, www2.warwick.ac.uk/ What’s it like? Patient and professional Picture: Left to Right, Dr Emma Briggs, fac/med/research/ perspectives.” Professor Kate Seers, Dr Gill Chumbley hscience/wrn (photo by William Campbell) She was also awarded Honorary Membership of the British Pain Society “in recognition of Contact: Kate Seers her outstanding contribution to the alleviation of pain through personal endeavour and @TheWRinN P A G E 2 Nursing Scholarship The Barbers’ Company Clinical from the Barbers’ Company.
  • Neuropathic Pain Stakeholders List

    Neuropathic Pain Stakeholders List

    Neuropathic pain Stakeholders List Abbott Laboratories Limited Abertawe Bro Morgannwg (ABM) University NHS Trust Allergan Pharmacueticals Ark Therapeutics Ltd Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland Association of British Insurers (ABI) Association of British Neurologists Association of the British Pharmaceuticals Industry (ABPI) Astellas Pharma Ltd BackCare Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust BMJ Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd Bolton PCT Bolton PCT Boston Scientific Limited Brain and Spine Foundation Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy British Association of Art Therapists British Association of Neuroscience Nurses British Association of Otolaryngologists Head and Neck Surgeons (ENT UK) British Association of Psychodrama and Sociodrama (BPA) British Association of Stroke Physicians (BASP) British National Formulary (BNF) British Orthopaedic Association British Paediatric Neurology Association British Pain Society British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Brunel University Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrookes) Care Quality Commission (CQC) Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) Chiesi Ltd Chronic Pain Policy Coalition Connecting for Health Cornwall & Isles of Scilly PCT Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Coventry and Warwickshire Cardiac Network Daiichi Sankyo UK Department for Communities and Local Government Department of Health Department
  • Core Standards for Pain Management Services in the UK

    Core Standards for Pain Management Services in the UK

    CSPMS Core Standards for Pain Management Services in the UK October 2015 CSPMS UK Edition 1/2015 Preface Preface Dr Kate Grady, Dean Pain affects all of us on occasion, but thankfully can be controlled or abates over a short period of time. For some, pain is ongoing to the degree of becoming persistent and for many is it significant. An estimated 14 million people in the UK live with chronic pain. The effects can be far reaching; quality of life is known to be as bad as that with a significant neurological illness such as Parkinson’s disease. A reported 41% of people who attend pain management clinics state that their pain has prevented them from working. Startlingly, severe chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of mortality, independent of socio-demographic factors. Persistent pain also affects family and carers. Pain therefore is a frequently presenting complaint across a wide range of health care settings. It presents to primary and community care and specialist (secondary) and specialised (tertiary). For most, their pain is treated, managed or resolved within the primary care and community setting. The pain management of those for whom this does not happen must be scaled up, which means referral to more specialised care. This referral should be timely; persistent pain does not go away but develops and accelerates over time through well recognised neurophysiological processes. The Faculty of Pain Medicine has previously contributed to the Royal College of Anaesthetists Guidelines for the Provision of Anaesthetic Services (GPAS) and detailed best practice for Anaesthetists involved in Pain Management Services.
  • Services for Older People in the City of Edinburgh

    Services for Older People in the City of Edinburgh

    Services for older people in the city of Edinburgh December 2018 Progress review following a joint inspection Contents 1. Background to this progress review 3 2. How we conducted this progress review 3 3. Progress made: what we found overview 4 4. Progress on recommendations for improvement 6 5. Conclusion and what happens next 38 Appendix 1: city of Edinburgh health and social care partnership 39 locality operational structure Appendix 2: city of Edinburgh health and social care partnership 40 planning and governance structure This report should be read alongside our original inspection report on which this progress review is based on. This can be found at: www.careinspectorate.com/images/documents/3831/Edinburgh%20services%20for %20older%20people%20joint%20inspection%20report%20May%202017.pdf The Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland jointly publish this progress review report. To find out more go to www.careinspectorate.com/ or www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/ Services for older people in the city of Edinburgh Page 2 of 40 1. Background to this progress review The Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland jointly carried out an inspection of services for older people in the city of Edinburgh between October and December 2016. We published a joint inspection report in May 2017, which is available on both scrutiny bodies’ websites. The purpose of the joint inspection was to find out how well the partnership achieved good personal outcomes for older people and their unpaid carers1. The report highlighted important weaknesses and where performance was unsatisfactory. We stated that we would monitor improvement and return to the partnership to review progress in 2018.
  • Group B 09-10

    Group B 09-10

    Supervisor Supervisor Address Supervisor Email Project Title Room S1642, RIE, 51 A systematic review of Little France Crescent, cognitive impairment in Dr Gillian Mead Edinburgh [email protected] patients with atrial Cardiology, RIE, 51 The Role of Endothelial Little France Cres, Progenitor Cells in Prof David Newby Edinburgh [email protected] Abdominal Aortic Dept of Cardiology, Diagnosis and Dr Muhammad Royal Hospital for Sick [email protected] Management of Walayat Children, Edinburgh, hs.uk Cardiomyopathy Endocrinology Unit, Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Queen's Effects of obesity in Dr Mandy Drake Medical Research [email protected] pregnancy Room S1642, RIE, 51 Post-stroke fatigue: the Dr Gillian Mead Little France Cres, [email protected] patient's prespective Dept of Urology, Optimisation of novel Western General markers of hypoxia in Mr Grant Stewart Hospital, Crewe Road, [email protected] prostate cancer Cardiology, RIE, 51 Pulse wave velocity Dr Nick Boon Little France Cres, [email protected] analysis Room E2.46, Centre for Changes in Inflammation Research, microvasculature Queen's Medical associated with chronic Research Institute, 47 graft injury following renal Ms Lorna Marson Little France Crescent, [email protected] transplantation Public Health Sciences, International child health Prof Harry Campbell Teviot Place, Edinburgh [email protected] development Division of Clinical A Systematic Review of Neurosciences, the effects of genetic Western General polymorphisms on the Dr Cathie Sudlow Hospital, Crewe Road, [email protected] outcome of stroke Community Child An audit of health services Dr Patricia D.
  • Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for Adults an Evidence-Based Review Prepared on Behalf of the British Pain Society

    Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for Adults an Evidence-Based Review Prepared on Behalf of the British Pain Society

    The British Pain Society Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for adults An evidence-based review prepared on behalf of the British Pain Society November 2013 To be reviewed October 2018 2 The British Pain Society Published by: The British Pain Society 3rd floor Churchill House 35 Red Lion Square London WC1R 4SG Website: www.britishpainsociety.org ISBN: 978-0-9561386-4-4 © The British Pain Society 2013 Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for adults 3 Contents Page Foreword 5 Definitions and approach to evidence 6 1. Executive summary 8 2. Background 10 3. PMPs: aims, methods, delivery and outcomes 12 4. Assisting retention and return to work in PMPs 19 5. Referral and selection 22 6. Resources 25 7. References 31 Membership of the group and expert contributors 37 4 The British Pain Society Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for adults 5 Foreword In 1997, the Pain Society (now the British Pain Society) published Desirable Criteria for Pain Management Programmes. This was a response to the perceived need for information and guidance for those involved in developing and running such biopsychosocial interventions. This third revision aims to provide updated guidance on what constitutes a pain management programme (PMP), its position within care pathways for people with chronic (non-cancer) pain and desirable content. A key evolution of the document is to apply current standards of evidence-based practice to the guidelines by applying a rigorous, explicit approach. The document complements other British Pain Society initiatives such as the Map of Medicine and Pain Patients Pathway which helps to define care pathways as a whole.
  • GREEN WAYS to HEALTH Case Study – Royal Edinburgh Hospital

    GREEN WAYS to HEALTH Case Study – Royal Edinburgh Hospital

    GREEN WAYS TO HEALTH Case Study – Royal Edinburgh Hospital nature.scot GREEN WAYS TO HEALTH ROYAL EDINBURGH HOSPITAL CASE STUDY ‘It’s good for patients to have The GREEN EXERCISE PARTNERSHIP is something on the ward that’s a joint venture between Forestry Commission different from their daily routine’ Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, NHS National Services Scotland and Health Chirlene Hall, Staff Nurse Scotland (the health improvement board of the National Health Service in Scotland). The Partnership aims to build links between the health and environment sectors, following growing evidence that public health can be improved by getting people engaged with the natural environment. Through its Greening the NHS Estate programme, the Partnership aims to establish at least one project in each of the eleven mainland Area Health Boards to show the health benefits that flow from positive investment in and management of the NHS estate – the greenspace around hospitals and healthcare centres. Public events give the garden a place in the local community. ROYAL EDINBURGH HOSPITAL The Royal Edinburgh Hospital is the main mental health hospital for the Lothian area. It occupies a large site in Morningside, in the south of the city, and includes units specialising in dementia care, learning disability, and addiction. There are over 500 in-patient beds. The original hospital opened in 1813, funded largely through donations that followed the death of the poet Robert Fergusson. A contemporary of Robbie Burns, Fergusson died at the age of 24 after a period of severe mental ill-health, during which he was confined in the city’s asylum.
  • Astley Ainslie Hospital 1

    Astley Ainslie Hospital 1

    Astley Ainslie Hospital Community Consultation Disposal Commitment Introduction The Astley Ainslie Hospital has now been declared surplus to NHS Lothian clinical strategy requirements. Services are being relocated as part of the closure process, the majority most within the nearby Royal Edinburgh Hospital campus. As part of the process of disposing of surplus assets NHS Lothian is committing to engaging with all key stakeholders, including the general public, MSP's Councilors, CEC planning department, Historic Environment Scotland and other interest groups to collate ideas and issues that are of importance to the community. Purpose of document With service re-provision still at the planning stage there is a substantial period available for community engagement prior to any disposal route being implemented. Meetings have already been held with local Community Council representatives, MSP's and the general public. The purpose of this document is to confirm NHS Lothian’s commitment to on-going engagement and to suggest a plan for the nature of this engagement and the documentation that will demonstrate the prioritised outcomes which will inform a disposal. This information will be used to create the criteria which all parties will use to establish the re-use of the land and buildings. It will form the basis of a document creating the most important development parameters for the site. This document will be formalised by way of a Development Brief containing all main development aspects and will be offered to CEC planning department for endorsement Engagement commitment • Inclusion – NHS Lothian is seeking to engage with all stakeholders to provide the widest range of interests the opportunity to provide their opinions.