ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202002.0389.v1
Subject: Arts & Humanities, Other Keywords: English Medium Instruction; Translanguaging; Chinese academics; Language transfer; higher education
Online: 26 February 2020 (11:04:39 CET)
Teaching through English Medium Instruction (EMI) has been a strategic move in some European and Asian countries as part of their educational internationalisation. A large number of studies on EMI teaching have appeared in the last decade. The majority of these report on issues and concerns at macro-level including: the lack of structured policy guidance, EMI lecturers and students’ low level of English proficiency, and a shortfall of research informed training programs for EMI lecturers. Up to date, there is little research into EMI in-class teaching and learning. Lived experience in EMI in-class practice has been largely ignored. To fill this gap, this research explored a group of academics’ in-class EMI practice in a Chinese university. Their teaching process through EMI was observed and recorded, with data analysed through a multiple theoretical lens. Data reveal that EMI teaching is a complicated issue and can be neither standardised nor prescribed. It needs to be addressed as a pedagogy responding to and influenced by local context, driven by language, culture and education systems. This research is expected to provide insight for the development of localised institutional guidelines for EMI teaching and lecturers’ professional development in EMI teaching.
ARTICLE | doi:10.20944/preprints202205.0202.v2
Subject: Medicine & Pharmacology, General Medical Research Keywords: Clinical handover; Patient Handoff; Patient transfer; Referral and Consultation; Medical Records Systems; Computerized; Patient Safety; Risk Management; Attitude; Institutional Practice
Online: 31 May 2022 (07:14:42 CEST)
Background: Handover is a critical process for ensuring quality and safety in healthcare. Considerable research suggests that poor handover results in significant morbidity, mortality, dissatisfaction, and excess financial costs. Despite this, little formal attention, education, and evaluation has been given to handover. There is also paucity of data on the opinions of practitioners on the safety of handover.Objectives: The aim of this study was to measure the perceived risk, degree of patient harm and the systems used to support handover, and to understand how this varied by care setting, type of clinical practice, location, or level of experience. Methods: An open, anonymous and confidential online questionnaire covering: (a) respondent characteristics; (b) peer-to-peer handover; (c) internal referrals; (d) discharges and transfers between organisations; and (e) leading and improving handover was conducted with healthcare practitioners and managers from various settings. Results: We gathered a total of 432 completed responses from 26 countries. The average reported performance of handover was rated as 3.9 out of 5.For each type of handover, 12 - 14% reported errors occurring more than weekly. Of those that knew the outcome of such errors, between 29% and 34% reported that they had witnessed moderate or severe harm. 12% and 17% of respondents believed that handover was high or very high risk (See table 4). These respondents were more likely to have witnessed moderate or severe harm, or to be more senior.A wide combination of handover systems was utilised by respondents. 28% - 32% relied exclusively on EPRs (with or without face-to-face contact). 21% used Office documents such as Word and Excel for peer-to-peer handover, and over 30% used hand-written or manual systems. Conclusions: This study suggests the need to do more — and go further — to improve communication and reduce risk during all types of handovers. Clinical leaders should find ways to train and support handover with effective systems, with less experienced staff being the primary focus. More research is needed to demonstrate the interventions that improve the safety of handover.