ImPACT: a multifaceted implementation for conversation partner training in aphasia inDutch rehabilitation settings. AbstractPurpose: Exploration of the clinical uptake of a novel conversation partner training (CPT) programme in aphasia in ten Dutch rehabilitation facilities and identification of its perceived facilitators and barriers in service providers, and the evaluation of the implementation methods used. Method:Ten rehabilitation centres took part in a multifaceted implementation of conversation partner training over thirteen months. Each centre selected two speech and language therapists to act as knowledge brokers whose role it was to raise awareness of CPT in the team and to facilitate getting partners of people with aphasia into the programme. The implementation was evaluated using analysis of recruitment data and questionnaires, supplemented by consensus data and scrutiny of implementation plans.Results: Successful implementation was described as 1) four dyads included during the intervention period, 2) two more dyads included after the intervention period, before the end of the study and 3) inclusion of Partners of Aphasic Clients Conversation Training (PACT) in a description of the logistics of local stroke care (stroke care pathway). Seven centres were successful in reaching the target inclusion of 6 dyads in total. Only one centre had care pathways in place. From a recruitment pool of 504 dyads, 41 dyads were recruited and 34 partners completed the implementation of PACT study (ImPACT). Observed facilitators included the motivation to engage partners in the rehabilitation process and the perceived added value of PACT. The perceived barriers focused on time limitations within current systems to discuss the consequences of PACT with relevant professionals and to establish allocated time for PACT within existing care routines. Conclusions:The motivation of professionals to involve partners in the rehabilitation process assisted with the introduction of PACT in practice. The main barrier was time, linked to the requirement to think through integration of this innovation within existing care. Longer term evaluation would ascertain how centres sustain uptake without support.

Partners appreciated the training programme once their initial lack of awareness of the interactive nature of communication had been addressed. SLTs need to be clear about the collaborative nature of conversations and what can be offered within the rehabilitation trajectory to address conversation alongside language training.

No abstract