mortiz058

Our seventh Tweetchat 'That doesn't translate’: the role of evidence-based practice in disempowering speech pathologists in acute aphasia management’ took place on Wednesday 27th July. We were delighted by the reach of the chat, hosted by Dr Hazel Roddam , with 37 participants sending 251 tweets that were delivered to 126,391 linked accounts. Thank you to everyone who contributed and followed the chat. Participants included SLTs from across the UK and in Australia as well as other AHPs. We know that people from other EU countries were also watching the conversation. We were particularly delighted that a number of people joined the Tweetchat for the first time – hope you enjoyed it! The paper reports an exploratory study of speech and language therapists working in Australia with patients who have acute aphasia and it uncovered some startling insights into the direct impact of professionals' values and attitudes on their clinical practice. The SLTs in this study reported fee

Our sixth #ResNetSLT Tweetchat 'Are your treatment decisions evidence or craft-based?' took place on Wednesday 29th June. Hosted by Mark Jayes  and Dr Emma Pagnamenta  the chat was based around this article . You can find the pre-chat information and questions here . It was another lively chat with 28 participants, 268 tweets and a potential reach of 171,046. Thank you to everyone who contributed and followed the discussion. The inspiration for the chat came from a study carried out by McCurtin & Clifford in 2015 who asked SLTs in Ireland about how they make treatment decisions. Current understanding of EBP suggests we make decisions using evidence from four sources: i) research; ii) practice - our own and our colleagues' clinical experience; iii) individual patient characteristics; iv) contextual information. The survey results suggested that the SLTs who responded make treatment decisions using evidence from two main sources: clinical experience (e.g. 'craft'

Our fifth Tweetchat 'So good to be involved: PPI in research' took place on Wednesday 25th May. We were delighted by the reach of the chat, hosted by Dr Rebecca Palmer and Dr Emma Pagnamenta , with 37 participants sending 482 tweets that were delivered to 728,787 linked accounts. We were particularly pleased by the interdisciplinary nature of the chat and the involvement of #whywedoresearch . Thank you to everyone who contributed and followed the chat. Patient and public involvement (PPI) is promoted at all stages of research, with everyone having a right to be involved. However, the high level of communication skills often required precludes the involvement of people with communication difficulties. We began the chat by sharing examples of how patients/service users are being involved in research. Many different ways of involving patients and the public were shared. These ranged from advisory groups, inputting to study materials, giving research ideas, using video conversatio