Ensuring student success : the role of support services in improving the quality of the student learning experience

This paper is based on the premise that universities have an obligation to provide adequate student support services, such as learning assistance (that is, assistance with academic writing and other study skills) and that in order to be effective such services must be responsive to the wider policy and social implications of student attrition and retention. The paper outlines briefly some of the factors that have influenced the development of learning assistance practices in Australia and America. This is followed by an account of experiences at one Australian metropolitan university where learning assistance service provision shifted from a decentralised, faculty-based model to a centralised model of service delivery. This shift was in response to concerns about lack of quality and consistency in a support model dependent upon faculty resources yet a follow up study identified other problems in the centralised delivery of learning assistance services. These problems, clustered under the heading contextualised versus decontextualised learning assistance, include the relevance of generic learning assistance services to students struggling with specific course related demands; the apparent tensions between challenging students and assisting students at risk of failure; and variations in the level of collaboration between learning advisers and academic staff in supporting students in the learning environment. These problems are analysed using the theoretical modelling derived from the tools made available through cultural historical activity theory and expansive visibilisation (Engeström & Miettinen, 1999).

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate! Improving Communication between Tertiary to Primary Care for Chronic Heart Failure Patients

Background:  The aims of this study were to determine the documentation of pharmacotherapy optimization goals in the discharge letters of patients with the principal diagnosis of chronic heart failure. Methods:  A retrospective practice audit of 212 patients discharged to the care of their local general practitioner from general medical units of a large tertiary hospital. Details of recommendations regarding ongoing pharmacological and non-pharmacological management were reviewed. The doses of medications on discharge were noted and whether they met current guidelines recommending titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. Ongoing arrangements for specialist follow up were also reviewed. Results:  The mean age of patients whose letters were reviewed was 78.4 years (standard deviation ± 8.6); 50% were men. Patients had an overall median of six comorbidities and eight regular medications on discharge. Mean length of stay for each admission was 6 days. Discharge letters were posted a median of 4 days after discharge, with 25% not posted at 10 days. No discharge letter was sent in 9.4% (20) of the cases. Only six (2.8%) letters had any recommendations regarding future titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and 6.6% (14) for beta-blockers. Recommendations for future non-pharmacological management, for example, diuretic action plans, regular weight monitoring and exercise plans were not found in the letters in this audit. Conclusion:  Hospital discharge is an opportunity to communicate management plans for treatment optimization effectively, and while this opportunity is spurned, implementation gaps in the management of cardiac failure will probably remain.