The phenomenon of crossed networks implies that the intervention based on promoting communication among PLD should encourage PLD patients to communicate not only with each other but also with other people. Traditionally, the concept of a crossed network implies that a group of PLD patients should converse with people having other types of disabilities (typically age-related ones) with (Heller, Fisher, Marks, & Hsieh, 2014). However, for the current study, the idea of including other members of the community that PLD patients live in has been suggested.
The reasons for enhancing the communication process between PLD and people without learning impediments can be explained by creating a more challenging environment for PLD to work in (Sheehan et al., 2016). The study claims that the current nursing approach, i.e., the assumption that PLD cannot have any talents or outstanding abilities creates premises for limiting the chances that PLD patients have. As a result, the possibility of discovering PLD’s talents, as well as premises for developing communication skills, can be located (Sigelman, & Ryder, 2014).
The approach involving crossed networks is expected to be more efficient than the current framework based on the use of the liability nurses’ services (Wray, Aspland, Taghzouit, & Pace, 2012). Although the latter do provide significant support for the patients, they become the mediators in the process of the patients’ communication, which is not the desired outcome of the therapy. It is important to make sure that the patient should be able to engage in a conversation and control it independently (Smith, Ooms, & Marks-Maran, 2016).
The effect that the crossed network and the communication-talent-oriented strategy will have on the patient will be assessed with the help of a quantitative method. Specifically, the adoption of the ANOVA tool should be viewed as an option (Randolph, & Myers, 2013).
Heller, T., Fisher, D., Marks, B., & Hsieh, K. (2014). Interventions to promote health: Crossing networks of intellectual and developmental disabilities and aging. Disability and Health Journal, 7(1), 24-32. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.06.001
Randolph, K. A., & Myers, L. L. (2013). Basic statistics in multivariate analysis. Oxford: OUP.
Sheehan, R., Gandesha, A., Hassiotis, A., Gallagher, P., Burnell, M., Jones, G.,… & Crawford, N. J. (2016). An audit of the quality of inpatient care for adults with learning disability in the UK. BMJ Open, 6(4), 1-7.
Sigelman, C. K., & Ryder, E. A. (2014). Life-span human development. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Smith, P., Ooms, A., & Marks-Maran, D. (2016). Active involvement of learning disabilities service users in the development and delivery of a teaching session to pre-registration nurses: Students’ perspectives. Nurse Education in Practice, 16(1), 111-118.
Wray, J., Aspland, J., Taghzouit, J., & Pace, K. (2012). Making the nursing curriculum more inclusive for students with specific learning difficulties (SpLD): Embedding specialist study skills into a core module. Nurse Education Today, 33(6), 602–607.