![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Purpose
Little is known about the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the community providing healthcare to people with aphasia. In this study we aimed to explore the experiences of community HCPs in healthcare conversations with people with aphasia, and whether a high-tech, purpose-built aphasia app could assist.
Methods
A generic qualitative study was conducted. HCPs from seven different clinical backgrounds were interviewed and data was thematically analysed.
Results
The experiences of healthcare providers providing healthcare to people with aphasia were identified in six major themes. These were: (1) Healthcare communication topics; (2) HCP knowledge; (3) Communication exchanges during the interactions (4) Communication impacts on care; (5) Interactions and relationships grew easier over time; and (6) How technology could help interactions.
Conclusions
HCPs with more aphasia knowledge reported having more positive experiences. Unsuccessful interactions were believed to lead to negative emotional responses in people with aphasia and HCPs, and that miscommunications could lead to compromised care. HCPs reported that interactions and relationships with people with aphasia grew easier over time. HCPs need system level support to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to engage people with aphasia in effective healthcare conversations. Technology has potential to improve interactions.
Implications for rehabilitation
The overall experience of Health care professionals (HCPs) providing healthcare to people with aphasia was reported to be challenging, taking extra emotional and intellectual effort and time.
When communication was unsuccessful this often led to emotional distress for both the HCP and person with aphasia and compromised care for the person with aphasia.
HCPs with more knowledge and skill, who had conversation partner training, were more likely to have successful communication interactions.
More system-level supports such as conversation partner training, and technology support were perceived to be beneficial.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all of the participants for sharing their experiences and allowing this research to be possible, and also those who supported recruitment for the study.
Ethical approval
Ethics approval was obtained from the Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID 4709).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).