Search

Background: A clinical swallow examination (CSE) provides integral information that informs the diagnostic decision-making process within dysphagia management. However, multiple studies have highlighted a high degree of reported variability within the CSE process. It has been hypothesized that such variability may be the result of the clinical reasoning process rather than poor practices. Aims: To elucidate the nature of expert, speech-language therapists' (SLTs) clinical reasoning during an initial bedside assessment of patients referred for suspected dysphagia in the acute care environment. Methods & Procedures: An exploratory 'observation of practice' qualitative methodology was used to achieve the aim. Four expert SLTs, from two clinical services, completed CSEs with 10 new referrals for suspected dysphagia. All assessments were video-recorded, and within 30 min of completing the CSE, a video-stimulated 'think aloud' semi-structured interview was conducted in which the SLT was prompted to articulate their clinical reasoning at each stage of the CSE. Three types of concept maps were generated based on this video and interview content: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. Patterns that consistently characterized the assessment process were identified, including the overall structure; types of reasoning (inductive versus deductive), facts (i.e., clinical information) drawn upon; and outcomes of the process (diagnosis and recommendations). Interview content was examined to identify types of expert reasoning strategies using during the CSE. Outcomes & Results: SLTs' approach to clinical assessment followed a consistent structure, with data gathered pre-bedside, during the patient interview and direct assessment before a management recommendation was made. Within this structure, SLTs engaged in an iterative approach with inductive hypothesis-generating and deductive hypothesis-testing, with each decision-making pathway individually tailored and informed by patient-specific facts collected during the assessment. Clinical assessment was primarily geared towards management of an initial acute presentation with less focus on formulating a diagnostic statement. Conclusions & Implications: Variability in reported dysphagia practice is likely the result of a patient-centred assessment process characterized by iterative cycles of fact-gathering in order to generate and test clinical hypotheses. This has implications for the development of novel assessment tools, as well as professional development and education of novice SLTs.

Professional development can provide opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge, and to apply them to practice in a sustainable way. However, delivery of professional development needs to consider the philosophies and pedagogies of training recipients, and activities should be tailored to meet their needs. This article reports on an exploratory study of an embedded, service-based model of professional development for early childhood educators (educators), targeting children's speech, language, and communication skill development. This innovative model, conducted by speech and language therapy (SLT) students and a SLT professional practice educator, utilized co-teaching strategies to facilitate the professional learning of educators and SLTs in this context. A qualitative research design was employed and data gathered through focus group interviews with educators and individual semi-structured interviews with centre directors. The data were triangulated with some observational data of educators' practices with young children several months post program completion to explore their application of skills and knowledge that had been covered in the professional development program. The data contained four main themes: Communication, relationships, environment, and translating knowledge into practice. Observational data lent further depth and validation to the results by confirming the presence or absence of expressed practice values and experiences in the educators' everyday interactions with children. The observational data supported the themes relationships and translating knowledge into practice. The results contribute to our understanding of educators' and childcare centre directors' perspectives on their knowledge, skills, and practice in response to this embedded professional development program. This model of professional development may be appropriate to facilitate knowledge and skill development about children's speech, language, and communication skills for educators working with young children in a childcare setting. Benefits for educators and SLTs were found where good working relationships and communication had been established.

The current research examined the phenomenon of fading affect bias – the tendency for affect associated with negative events to fade more than affect associated with positive events – within the context of romantic relationships. Participants recalled and evaluated positive and negative relationship-specific and non-relationship autobiographical events. Participants also completed measures of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Multi-level modeling demonstrated fading affect bias for relationship and non-relationship events, but that affect fade was shaped by attachment orientations. Specifically, higher attachment anxiety, and lower attachment avoidance predicted greater importance of relationship events which predicted lower fading of affective intensity of memories. Thus, attachment anxiety sustained, while attachment avoidance suppressed the affect of relational memories. We discuss implications of these findings for relationship maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Collecting feedback from patients about their experiences of health care is an important activity. However, improvement based on this feedback rarely materializes. In this study, we focus on answering the question—"what is impeding the use of patient experience feedback?" Methods: We conducted a qualitative study in 2016 across three NHS hospital Trusts in the North of England. Focus groups were undertaken with ward‐based staff, and hospital managers were interviewed in‐depth (50 participants). We conducted a conceptual‐level analysis. Findings: On a macro level, we found that the intense focus on the collection of patient experience feedback has developed into its own self‐perpetuating industry with a significant allocation of resource, effort and time being expended on this task. This is often at the expense of pan‐organizational learning or improvements being made. On a micro level, ward staff struggled to interact with feedback due to its complexity with questions raised about the value, validity and timeliness of data sources. Conclusions: Macro and micro prohibiting factors come together in a perfect storm which provides a substantial impediment to improvements being made. Recommendations for policy change are put forward alongside recognition that high‐level organizational culture/systems are currently too sluggish to allow fruitful learning and action to occur from the feedback that patients give. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient safety measurement remains a global challenge. Patients are an important but neglected source of learning; however, little is known about what patients can add to our understanding of safety. We sought to understand the incidence and nature of patient-reported safety concerns in hospital. Methods Feedback about the experience of safety within hospital was gathered from 2471 inpatients as part of a multicentre, waitlist cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention, undertaken within 33 wards across three English NHS Trusts, between May 2013 and September 2014. Patient volunteers, supported by researchers, developed a classification framework of patient-reported safety concerns from a random sample of 231 reports. All reports were then classified using the patient-developed categories. Following this, all patient-reported safety concerns underwent a two-stage clinical review process for identification of patient safety incidents. Results Of the 2471 inpatients recruited, 579 provided 1155 patient-reported incident reports. 14 categories were developed for classification of reports, with communication the most frequently occurring (22%), followed by staffing issues (13%) and problems with the care environment (12%). 406 of the total 1155 patient incident reports (35%) were classified by clinicians as a patient safety incident according to the standard definition. 1 in 10 patients (264 patients) identified a patient safety incident, with medication errors the most frequently reported incident. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients can provide insight about safety that complements existing patient safety measurement, with a frequency of reported patient safety incidents that is similar to those obtained via case note review. However, patients provide a unique perspective about hospital safety which differs from and adds to current definitions of patient safety incidents. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702; preresults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is growing interest in the role of patients in improving patient safety. One such role is providing feedback on the safety of their care. Here we describe the development and feasibility testing of an intervention that collects patient feedback on patient safety, brings together staff to consider this feedback and to plan improvement strategies. We address two research questions: i) to explore the feasibility of the process of systematically collecting feedback from patients about the safety of care as part of the PRASE intervention; and, ii) to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the PRASE intervention for staff, and to understand more about how staff use the patient feedback for service improvement. Method: We conducted a feasibility study using a wait-list controlled design across six wards within an acute teaching hospital. Intervention wards were asked to participate in two cycles of the PRASE (Patient Reporting & Action for a Safe Environment) intervention across a six-month period. Participants were patients on participating wards. To explore the acceptability of the intervention for staff, observations of action planning meetings, interviews with a lead person for the intervention on each ward and recorded researcher reflections were analysed thematically and synthesised. Results: Recruitment of patients using computer tablets at their bedside was straightforward, with the majority of patients willing and able to provide feedback. Randomisation of the intervention was acceptable to staff, with no evidence of differential response rates between intervention and control groups. In general, ward staff were positive about the use of patient feedback for service improvement and were able to use the feedback as a basis for action planning, although engagement with the process was variable. Gathering a multidisciplinary team together for action planning was found to be challenging, and implementing action plans was sometimes hindered by the need to co-ordinate action across multiple services. Discussion: The PRASE intervention was found to be acceptable to staff and patients. However, before proceeding to a full cluster randomised controlled trial, the intervention requires adaptation to account for the difficulties in implementing action plans within three months, the need for a facilitator to support the action planning meetings, and the provision of training and senior management support for participating ward teams. Conclusions: The PRASE intervention represents a promising method for the systematic collection of patient feedback about the safety of hospital care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]