Focus on communication: increasing the opportunity for successful staff–patient interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study reports on a pilot study examining the feasibility of a Patient-Centred Communication Intervention. Aims of this study include: assessing the implementation of the communication care plans; identifying staff perceptions of the intervention; exploring changes in patients' perceptions of care and psychosocial functioning; and exploring changes in nurses' knowledge of and attitude towards communication with patients. BACKGROUND: More than 50% of stroke survivors have speech and language impairments. Many nurses lack the specialized skills to effectively communicate with patients and therefore have difficulties understanding the patients' needs. DESIGN: A one-group pre- post-test design supplemented with a focus group session with nursing staff was used. The intervention consisted of developing individualized communication plans; attending at a workshop; and implementing a system to support nurses when using the plans. The plans were used over a 2-month period. Focus groups were held with seven nurses. RESULTS: The pilot study demonstrated feasibility. There was an excellent response rate and nurses adhered to the intervention. CONCLUSION: The Patient-Centred Communication Intervention is feasible and has demonstrated potential for a larger-scale study. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Providing tailored approaches to communication-enhancement education may be necessary for changes in practice to occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".