Search

The objective of this review is to examine the current literature related to interpersonal communication skill development within undergraduate paramedicine. Interpersonal communication is a vital paramedic skill, with evidence demonstrating it leads to improved patient outcomes and satisfaction and reduces medical errors. Interpersonal communication is a core capability set by paramedicine regulatory bodies, and it is the responsibility of accredited universities to ensure graduates are ready for industry and possess all required skills and attributes. In order to be included in this scoping review, all articles were required to meet a pre-determined 'population, concept, context' (PCC) framework. The population was undergraduate paramedic students within the context of their undergraduate paramedicine programs, and the concept was interpersonal communication education/teaching/training. In June 2021, a search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Emcare and ERIC. The articles had to be written in English and published between 2011 and 2021 and non-research sources were excluded. 176 articles were identified in this search and after screening for duplicates and relevancy, 15 articles were found to be eligible. The literature highlighted 4 key themes, including graduate perception of 'work readiness', and a variety of learning experiences including alternative work integrated learning (WIL), interactions with specific patient groups and professional learning experiences. The literature demonstrated that interpersonal communication skills are fostered through human interactions, WIL and simulation, within undergraduate paramedicine programs. Findings from the literature review indicate that practising communication through human interactions, afford an increase in confidence, awareness of ability and empathy, and an increased awareness of preconceived biases. Intraprofessional and interprofessional simulation teaching methods demonstrate the potential to build students confidence in communication and awareness of what is required to function well in a team.

Background: There is increased interest in implementing structured clinical handover frameworks to improve clinical handover processes. Research postulates that structured clinical handover frameworks increase the quality of handovers; yet inconsistencies enacting these frameworks exist which has a potential to jeopardise the quality of communication during handovers thereby defeating the purpose of these frameworks. Aim: This scoping review aims to analyse and synthesise what is currently known of the nurses' experiences and perceptions in implementing structured clinical handover frameworks and identify knowledge gaps in relation to this topic area. Design: A scoping review guided by the PRISMA‐ScR checklist. Methods: A systematic search of five electronic databases was undertaken to identify peer‐reviewed primary research studies which met the predetermined eligibility criteria. In total, 301 studies were imported into COVIDENCE, screened and assessed for eligibility resulting in 23 studies remaining. From the eligible studies, data was extracted, collated, appraised, summarised and interpreted. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINHAL, ProQuest, EMCARE, Web of Science and Informit. Results: Twenty three studies were included in this review which yielded the following major themes: (1) quality and completeness of information transfer; (2) interprofessional collaboration; (3) challenges impacting the experience of implementing the structured clinical handover frameworks and (4) perceived impacts on quality, patient safety and health outcomes. Conclusion: There are key benefits and issues experienced and perceived by nurses implementing structured clinical handover frameworks and this review identifies opportunities for further improvements. Future research should explore the perceived associations with patient outcomes. Relevance to Clinical Practice: This review highlights the importance of structured clinical handover frameworks, the nurses' experiences in implementing these frameworks and strategies to improve the effectiveness of these frameworks. Patient or Public Contributions: No Patient or Public Contributions as this study is a review of published primary evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]