JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

30 / 60

28 JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015 Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
a range of different maps, alphabet, and number boards,
picture-based resources, topic cards, and word lists such
as the months of the year and days of the week. Finally, a
communication partner training program, tailored to meet
the needs of this new program and the hospital setting was
developed. This program is described in detail below.
Supported conversation volunteer
training
Information and resources from The Communication
Access Toolkit (Parr, Wimborne, Hewitt, & Pound, 2008)
and the Supported Conversation for Adults Training
Workshops (The Aphasia Institute,
health care-professionals/ai-training/) were combined with
newly developed resources to create three separate
workshops. In the first workshop, volunteers were
and the Aphasia Institute ) and
had completed training in supported conversation and the
second author who had noticed that many inpatients with
communication disorders in the hospital appeared bored
and had few opportunities to engage in conversation.
Together, they saw the opportunity to provide some Angel
Volunteers with supported conversation partner training
so that patients with acquired communication disorders
following stroke could have more opportunities for
enjoyable social interactions. While the authors were aware
of a home-based supported conversation partner scheme
for people with chronic aphasia living in the community
(McVicker, Parr, Pound, & Duchan, 2009), this was the first
program that they were aware of that provided supported
conversation opportunities to hospital inpatients with
acquired communication disorders.
Members of the speech pathology department
conducted a short survey of ten patients with acquired
communication disorders to gauge their interest in the
proposed program. All ten patients stated that they enjoyed
having good conversations in hospital but only three said
they were actually having good conversations. Six of the ten
patients indicated that they would like more opportunities
for good conversations. They also stated that health was
the main topic of conversation in hospital and they had a
desire to discuss other topics. This short survey indicated
that there would be interest from patients for more
opportunities for social conversation, therefore a Supported
Conversation Volunteer (SCV) program was piloted.
The Supported Conversation
Volunteer Pilot Program
A number of steps were taken to establish the pilot SCV
program. The speech pathology manager (first author)
engaged with the key stakeholders including the volunteer
manager and acute stroke and inpatient rehabilitation nurse
unit managers to inform them about the proposal and to
gain their support. Then, the first author submitted the
proposal to the Allied Health Quality Committee and it was
subsequently approved. The volunteer manager then
approached two volunteers to participate in the pilot. These
volunteers had already completed all of the necessary
induction and training processes required to volunteer at St
Vincent’s. These included an interview, reference checks, a
police check, attendance at a half-day orientation program
for all new staff, and a full-day volunteer orientation program.
The speech pathology team provided information and
education about the SCV program to nursing, allied health,
and medical staff in the acute stroke and inpatient rehabilitation
units within the hospital. They also developed guidelines,
procedures, and resources to support the implementation
and evaluation of the program. These included criteria to
identify suitable patients for the program, procedures for
referring patients, and a referral form. Criteria included a
recent diagnosis of stroke, presence of a post- stroke
communication disability, ability to concentrate for 20–30
minutes, conversational English, and an interest in being
visited by a volunteer. A position description that outlined
the roles and responsibilities of supported conversation
volunteers and a document detailing the procedures for
volunteers were also written. To support the volunteers in
conversation with patients, a communication history
questionnaire and resource folders were also developed.
The communication history questionnaire was designed to
be completed by the patient or a close other and included
information about the patient’s premorbid communication
style, family, friends, lifestyle, hobbies, and interests. The
resource folders included paper and markers, whiteboards,
Julia Shulsinger
(top), and Robyn
O’Halloran
orientated to the program, given theoretical information
about acquired communication disorders and supported
conversation, and then participated in role plays. Further
details about the first workshop are provided in Table 1. The
second workshop, described in Table 2, included
observation of a speech pathologist using supported
conversation with inpatients with acquired communication
disorders. These patients were current inpatients who had
been referred to speech pathology and had agreed to
assist with the training. The volunteers were then given the
opportunity to try supported conversation strategies with
these patients under the supervision of a speech
pathologist. The final workshop, described in Table 3,
provided volunteers with further opportunities to use
supported conversation strategies with participating
patients with acquired communication disorders.
Opportunities for feedback and reflection were also
included as part of the second and third workshops. The
volunteers completed all of the training and completed a
post-training questionnaire, which indicated that they felt
confident providing conversation support to inpatients with
acquired communication disorders before the SCV program
commenced.
The pilot program
The pilot program began in February 2011 and ran for 6
weeks. Patients were referred by their treating speech
pathologist and the coordinators allocated the patients to
each volunteer. The treating speech pathologists on the
rehabilitation units also scheduled the volunteers’
appointments on the patients’ weekly rehabilitation
timetables. Every week, each volunteer engaged 1–2
patients in approximately 30 minutes of conversation each.
In total, over the six-week trial, the two volunteers engaged
ten patients in a total of 24 hours of conversation.
After each supported conversation, the volunteer
completed a reflective journal and documented the
amount of time spent with the patient, the topics that were