No abstract

The objective was twofold: to provide an overview of the objectives, target groups and settings for which Talking Mats has been used (Part 1), and an overview of empirical scientific knowledge on the use of Talking Mats (Part 2). MethodsIn this scoping review scientific and grey literature was searched in PubMed, Cinahl, Psychinfo, Google, and Google Scholar. Articles that described characteristics of Talking Mats or its use were included. For Part 2, additional selection criteria were applied to focus on empirical scientific knowledge. ResultsThe search yielded 73 publications in Part 1, 12 of which were included in Part 2. Talking Mats was used for functional objectives (e.g. goal setting) and to improve communication and involvement. Part 2 showed that Talking Mats had positive influences on technical communication, effectiveness of conversations, and involvement and decision making in conversations. However, the level of research evidence is limited. ConclusionsTalking Mats can be used to support conversations between professionals and communication vulnerable people. More research is needed to study the views of people who are communication vulnerable and to study the effects of Talking Mats. ConclusionTalking Mats can be used to support communication and involvement and for functional objectives during the healthcare process. The empirical studies showed that Talking Mats had a positive influence on several communication aspects and involvement in conversations for people with aphasia, learning disabilities, H T T M tween communication vulnerable people and professionals or caregivers. However, the body of scientific knowledge about Talking Mats is limited, due to the designs of the studies and the limited number of studies per target group. Establishing evidence-based recommendations for using Talking Mats in daily practice requires more scientific knowledge.

ObjectiveTo gain insight into how communication vulnerable people and health‐care professionals experience the communication in dialogue conversations, and how they adjust their conversation using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) or other communication strategies.MethodsCommunication vulnerable clients and health‐care professionals in a long‐term care institution were observed during a dialogue conversation (n = 11) and subsequently interviewed (n = 22) about their experiences with the conversation. The clients had various communication difficulties due to different underlying aetiologies, such as acquired brain injury or learning disorder. Results from the observations and interviews were analysed using conventional content analysis.ResultsSeven key themes emerged regarding the experiences of clients and professionals: clients blame themselves for miscommunications; the relevance of both parties preparing the conversation; a quiet and familiar environment benefitting communication; giving clients enough time; the importance and complexity of nonverbal communication; the need to tailor communication to the client; prejudices and inexperience regarding AAC. The observations showed that some professionals had difficulties using appropriate communication strategies and all professionals relied mostly on verbal or nonverbal communication strategies.ConclusionProfessionals were aware of the importance of preparation, sufficient time, a suitable environment and considering nonverbal communication in dialogue conversations. However, they struggled with adequate use of communication strategies, such as verbal communication and AAC. There is a lack of knowledge about AAC, and professionals and clients need to be informed about the potential of AAC and how this can help them achieve equal participation in dialogue conversations in addition to other communication strategies.

PurposeThis study investigated the improvement of interprofessional practice in primary care by performing the first three steps of the implementation model described by Grol et al. This article describes the targets for improvement in a setting for children with complex care needs (step 1), the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing interprofessional practice (step 2), and the development of a tailored interprofessional process model (step 3).MethodsIn step 2, thirteen qualitative semistructured interviews were held with several stakeholders, including parents of children, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, a physical therapist, the manager of the team, two general practitioners, a psychologist, and a primary school teacher. The data were analyzed using directed content analysis and using the domains of the Chronic Care Model as a framework. In step 3, a project group was formed to develop helpful strategies, including the development of an interprofessional process through process mapping.ResultsIn step 2, it was found that the most important barriers to implementing interprofessional practice related to the lack of structure in the care process. A process model for interprofessional primary care was developed for the target group.ConclusionThe lack of a shared view of what is involved in the process of interprofessional practice was the most important barrier to its successful implementation. It is suggested that the tailored process developed, supported with the appropriate tools, may provide both professional staff and their clients, in this setting but also in other areas of primary care, with insight to the care process and a clear representation of “who should do what, when, and how.”