Communication partner training for health care professionals in an inpatient rehabilitation setting: A parallel randomised trial

<p><i>Purpose</i>: The purpose of this study is to determine if the E-Learning Plus communication partner training (CPT) programme is as effective as the Supported Conversation for Adults with Aphasia (SCA^TM) CPT programme in improving healthcare professionals’ confidence and knowledge communicating with patients with aphasia.</p> <p><i>Method</i>: Forty-eight healthcare professionals working in inpatient rehabilitation participated. Participants were randomised to one of the CPT programmes. The three outcome measures were self-rating of confidence, self-rating of knowledge and a test of knowledge of aphasia. Measures were taken pre-, immediately post- and 3–4 months post-training. Data were analysed using mixed between within ANOVAs.</p> <p><i>Result</i>: Homogeneity of variance was adequate for self-rating of confidence and test of knowledge of aphasia data to continue analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in self-rating of confidence and knowledge of aphasia for both interventions across time. No statistically significant difference was found between the two interventions.</p> <p><i>Conclusion</i>: Both CPT interventions were associated with an increase in health care professionals’ confidence and knowledge of aphasia, but neither programme was superior. As the E-Learning Plus CPT programme is more accessible and sustainable in the Australian healthcare context, further work will continue on this CPT programme.</p

Representation and reporting of communicatively vulnerable patients in patient experience research

PURPOSE: To apply a human rights lens to measuring patient experience. Specifically, to determine if the perspectives of communicatively vulnerable people have been included in the patient experience research used to inform the development of the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS). METHOD: Thirty-nine qualitative studies on patient experience that informed the development of AHPEQS were critically appraised in terms of reporting on: population of interest, eligibility criteria, communicative demands of the research and communicative supports provided. RESULT: Eleven of 39 studies included sufficient information about the population to determine that communicatively vulnerable people would have been approached to participate. Three of these studies explicitly excluded people who were communicatively vulnerable, and four did not report on the provision of any communication supports to enable communicatively vulnerable people to participate. CONCLUSION: Intentional exclusion and/or a lack of communication supports restrict the rights of people who are communicatively vulnerable to express their opinions about what matters to them in hospital. Inadequate reporting of qualitative research on patient experience also makes it difficult to determine if the perspectives of people who are communicatively vulnerable have informed the development of the AHPEQS

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc