Ruth Helen Parry

Homecare re-ablement services have been developed by local authorities in England in response to the government agenda for health and social care. These services aim to optimize users’ independence and ability to cope at home, and reduce the need for ongoing health and social care services. However, there is currently limited evidence and guidance regarding the optimum configuration and delivery of re-ablement services. In particular, the impact of occupational therapy input on service user outcomes has been highlighted as a specific research priority. This feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 50 people from one local authority led homecare re-ablement service in England. Those who provide informed consent will be randomized to receive either usual homecare re-ablement (without routine occupational therapy input) or usual homecare re-ablement plus an enhanced program targeted at activities of daily living (ADL), delivered by an occupational therapist. The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a further, powered study. The participant outcomes assessed will be independence in personal and extended ADL, health and social care-related quality of life, number of care support hours, falls, acute and residential admissions and use of health and social care services. These will be assessed at two weeks, three months and six months post-discharge from the re-ablement service. To our knowledge, this is the first RCT of occupational therapy in homecare re-ablement services. The results of this study will lay the foundations for a further powered study. The findings will be relevant to researchers, clinicians, commissioners and users of adult social care services. Current Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN21710246 (registered on 31March 2014)

Background Conversation and discourse analytic research has yielded important evidence about skills needed for effective, sensitive communication with patients about illness progression and end of life. Objectives To: ▸ Locate and synthesise observational evidence about how people communicate about sensitive future matters; ▸ Inform practice and policy on how to provide opportunities for talk about these matters; ▸ Identify evidence gaps. Design Systematic review of conversation/discourse analytic studies of recorded interactions in English, using a bespoke appraisal approach and aggregative synthesis. Results 19 publications met the inclusion criteria. We summarised findings in terms of eight practices: ‘fishing questions’—open questions seeking patients’ perspectives (5/19); indirect references to difficult topics (6/19); linking to what a patient has already said—or noticeably not said (7/19); hypothetical questions (12/19); framing difficult matters as universal or general (4/19); conveying sensitivity via means other than words, for example, hesitancy, touch (4/19); encouraging further talk using means other than words, for example, long silences (2/19); and steering talk from difficult/negative to more optimistic aspects (3/19). Conclusions Practices vary in how strongly they encourage patients to engage in talk about matters such as illness progression and dying. Fishing questions and indirect talk make it particularly easy to avoid engaging—this may be appropriate in some circumstances. Hypothetical questions are more effective in encouraging on-topic talk, as is linking questions to patients’ cues. Shifting towards more ‘optimistic’ aspects helps maintain hope but closes off further talk about difficulties: practitioners may want to delay doing so. There are substantial gaps in evidence.

There is a growing demand for services whereby individuals receive assistance from care workers for personal care within the home. This has led to the development of re-ablement or restorative homecare services that provide time-limited input aimed at reducing dependency in personal activities of daily living, and preventing or delaying the need for further homecare support. However, little is currently known about how such interventions are configured, or how they may affect individuals’ ability to carry out personal care independently.

Background: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence.Methods: We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures:• reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these• clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing• holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing• attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dyingResults: We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence.Conclusions: The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers.

Physiotherapists often have to ask their clients to move in a certain way, and they sometimes accompany such instructions with explanations. It turns out that these practitioners have an interesting resource—they can design their explanation to bear either upon the exact movement currently in play or on a more general or future case. I show that they make this distinction largely by how they deploy explanatory connectives like because, so, and so on—and, counterintuitively, how they omit such connectives. I finish by considering other datasets and discussing the pedagogical benefits, in any interaction, of being able to construct and convey different temporal domains that the account is meant to bear on.

This paper examines healthcare communication between physiotherapists and patients during treatment sessions, using the perspectives and methods of conversation analysis. In particular, it examines communication about reasons and rationale for treatment actions by analysing physiotherapists’ accounts (explanations) for these actions during treatment sessions. Circumstances in which accounts arise are identified, structural aspects described and their functions demonstrated. These accounts can be persuasive, can foster mutuality, minimise resistance and provide education. They contribute to sensitive handling of patients’ physical failures and of removing clothing. Questions arising, but as yet unanswered, include whether clinicians’ accounts impact on patients’ perceptions and their long‐term outcomes. Analysis sheds some light on why observers have found accounts are uncommon in actual consultations. It thereby contributes to sociological understandings about why certain matters are and are not communicated during healthcare encounters, demonstrating the significance of practical and interactional constraints. The findings also provide clinically relevant information about when and how accounts can be provided, and what accounting can achieve in terms of both local procedures and the overall character of the consultation and relationship.

This paper explores relations between official written recommendations for physiotherapists and actual practice. It does so by presenting and discussing findings from a conversation analytic study of 74 physiotherapy treatment sessions video-recorded in four English hospitals. Various practices are described by which therapists address troubles of ongoing or recent physical performance by patients during phases of sessions that are occupied with therapists' instructions in treatment activities and patients' physical responses. Divergence between practice and official guidance can be observed, particularly regarding recommendations that therapists always be unambiguous and clear in their communication with patients. Also, there seem to be conflicting demands between maintaining performance of physical treatment activities, whilst also spending time giving patients information and explanation about troubles of performance, and checking their understanding (as is recommended). There are also conflicting demands between individual recommendations. These observations inform a discussion of the wider challenges involved in formulating relevant, appropriate official guidance on communication practice. I argue that the difficulties of auditing actual conduct against official recommendations on interaction should be acknowledged, and that recommendations should be explicitly tentative and broad. Conversation analytic studies can provide resources and understandings to complement and augment such official guidance.