Evaluation of the impact of conflict management training

MMF were contracted by CHAS to deliver structured training on conflict management for clinicians working with children with a life-shortening condition and their families. The first cohort commenced June 2024, and the second cohort commenced November 2024. This report presents the evaluation of the impact of that training on clinicians' recognition and understanding of conflict with families and how those conflicts can be managed effectively, de-escalated or resolved. In order to assess the impact of the training on their practice, three surveys were designed. Each cohort were identified by CHAS (by virtue of their registration to attend the training). CHAS sent out an explanatory email and participant information sheets to all those in each cohort who had registered to attend, and gave them an anonymised individual code and a link to the initial survey. Those attendees who consented to participate then completed the survey, identifying themselves only by their anonymised code. This initial survey was completed prior to their attendance at the training session, to give a baseline of their understanding of, and approaches to conflict management. Questions focused on the number of instances of conflict clinicians had experienced, the approaches they used to seek resolution, their confidence in managing those conflicts, and who they would approach for advice or support. On completion of the training, CHAS sent out a second explanatory email, the same anonymised code and link to the post-training evaluation survey. This second survey focussed on whether/how their approaches to resolving conflict had changed as a result of the training, and whether/how they planned to alter their practice in the future. CHAS then sent a final explanatory email, the same anonymised code and link to a 6-month follow-up survey which was designed to capture their understanding and experience of using the skills they had acquired over a period of time since the training took place, and the consequent impact on, or change in their practice. A 6 month interval was selected as participants needed a period of time during which they could reflect on how their understanding and skills had influenced their practice. The research was granted ethical approval by RGU’s School Ethical Review Panel.