NPT construct | Influencing factors |
---|---|
Coherence or ‘sense making work’ | Enablers: |
 |  • Previous FV work |
 |  • Increased discussion of the FV work in team meetings |
 | Barriers: |
 |  • Time of significant change with introduction of KAS framework |
 |  • Some participants misunderstood their role and in several areas, frequent staff changes impacted on implementation |
Cognitive participation or ‘participation work’ | Enablers: |
 |  • Favourable responses of women and the perceived client consciousness raising (primary prevention) |
 |  • Continual team discussions on FV work |
 | Barriers: |
 |  • Lack of privacy to screen in consultations |
 |  • Heavy workloads and competing client demands |
 |  • Limited FV service support |
Collective action or ‘enacting work’ |  |
 | Enablers: |
 |  • Use of the maternal health and wellbeing checklist at 3–4 months enhanced client-nurse interaction and was a ‘good fit’ into the government guidelines |
 |  • Planting a seed by multiple asking points |
 |  • FV liaison worker |
 |  • Adequate knowledge and skill set |
 | Barriers: |
 |  • Poor organisational structure - limited ability to link with other team members or services |
 |  • Low funding and disproportionate allocation of FV liaison worker support to some teams |
Reflexive monitoring or ‘appraisal work’ | Enablers: |
 |  • Clinical supervision allowed for individual reflection |
 | Barriers: |
 |  • Lack of awareness that evaluation and monitoring was required |
 |  • Absence of formal reporting systems in both MCH and FV service |