Purpose
The origin of the project was in an evaluation of a scheme to introduce a clinical facilitator into the practice placements of an undergraduate programme. The evaluators pointed out that improving communication was the least well operationalized and most ambitious of the five objectives of the scheme. It was, therefore, hardly surprising that stakeholders expressed most concern about its fulfilment. Amongst their 18 recommendations, the evaluators included one that suggested that consideration be given to clarification of the respective responsibilities for communication of assessor/ mentors, link tutors and clinical facilitators. It was further recommended that a communication audit should be undertaken as a baseline for development and future evaluation. This proved to be a more original recommendation than was anticipated in that the literature on organisational communication in nursing placements was surprisingly slight and the communication audits used in other public and private organisations had not been applied in nurse education
Methods
This project then, uniquely in the literature, addressed all who were involved in communication concerning placement determined on the basis of what is described as an organisational analysis. The aim of the audit was to identify levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with present communication processes and to identify points for improvement. The audit tool used was the Hogard- Barker Communication Audit of Practice a customised version of a well-established tool, devised to cover issues relevant to practice placements. A key feature of the tool is the opportunity for participants to identify the amount of communication they are receiving on particular topics and issues against the amount they would like to receive. Participants in the audit included students, assessor mentors, ward managers, clinical facilitators and link tutors. Out of 158 questionnaires distributed a total of 74 were completed as follows :53 from 96 possible students (54%); Seven from 10 possible ward managers (70%); Nine from 39 possible assessor/mentors (26%); One from one possible clinical facilitator (100%); Five from six possible link tutors (83%); Nil from three possible allocation staff.
Results
Overall there was considerable dissatisfaction with what was perceived to be the insufficient amount of communication received on a number of topics including allocations, the curriculum, students' learning outcomes and commitments in terms of college work.
Conclusion
In addition to identifying points for improvement the audit provided a baseline against which progress could be assessed through a future audit. Following the publication of the audit to representatives of the Trust and the University, a number of improvements have been implemented and communication will be audited again after a year.
See more of: Evidence-Based Practice Sessions: Oral Paper & Posters