Search

Background: Many speech sound disorder (SSD) interventions with a long‐term evidence base are 'new' to clinical practice, and the role of services in supporting or constraining capacity for practice change is underexplored. Innovations from implementation science may offer solutions to this research–practice gap but have not previously been applied to SSD. Aim: To explain variation in speech and language therapy service capacity to implement new SSD interventions. Methods & Procedures: We conducted an intensive, case‐based qualitative study with 42 speech and language therapists (SLTs) in three NHS services (n = 39) and private practice (n = 3) in Scotland. We explored therapists' diverse experiences of SSD practice change through individual interviews (n = 28) or self‐generated paired (n = 2) or focus groups (n = 3). A theoretical framework (Normalization Process Theory) helped us understand how the service context contributed to the way therapists engaged with different practice changes. Outcomes & Results: We identified six types ('cases') of practice change, two of which involved the new SSD interventions. We focus on these two cases ('Transforming' and 'Venturing') and use Normalization Process Theory's Cognitive participation construct to explain implementation (or not) of new SSD interventions in routine practice. Therapists were becoming aware of the new interventions through knowledge brokers, professional networks and an intervention database. In the Transforming case, new SSD interventions for selected children were becoming part of local routine practice. Transforming was the result of a favourable service structure, a sustained and supported 'push' that made implementation of the new interventions a service priority, and considerable collective time to think about doing it. 'Venturing' happened where the new SSD interventions were not a service priority. It involved individual or informal groups of therapists trying out or using one or more of the new interventions with selected children within the constraints of their service context. Conclusions & implications: New, evidence‐based SSD interventions may be challenging to implement in routine practice because they have in common a need for therapists who understand applied linguistics and can be flexible with service delivery. Appreciating what it really takes to do routine intervention differently is vital for managers and services who have to make decisions about priorities for implementation, along with realistic plans for resourcing and supporting it. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Many SSD interventions have an evidence base but are not widely adopted into routine clinical practice. Addressing this is not just about individual therapists or education/training, as workplace pressures and service delivery models make it difficult to change practice. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This paper applies innovations from implementation science to help explain how what is going on in services can support or constrain capacity for implementing evidence‐based SSD interventions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Service managers and therapists will have a clearer idea of the time and support they may realistically have to invest for new SSD interventions to be used routinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Above cuff vocalisation (ACV) involves the application of an external flow of air via the subglottic port of a tracheostomy. ACV can facilitate vocalisation and may improve swallowing and quality of life for patients with a tracheostomy. A recent systematic review highlighted the limited evidence available for the acceptability, effectiveness, safety or optimal implementation of ACV. Aims: To explore the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) using ACV and their perceptions of best practice. Methods and Procedures: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a range of HCPs with experience using ACV. Topics included: experiences with ACV, management of ACV, opinions about ACV, impact of COVID‐19, future directions for ACV and impact on length of stay. Interviews were conducted online from December 2020 to March 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes and Results: Twenty‐four HCPs were interviewed from seven countries and five professional groups. Four interconnected themes were developed: (1) moral distress amplifying the need to fix patients; (2) subjectivity and uncertainty leading to variations in practice and purpose; (3) knowledge and experience leading to control and caution; and (4) worth a try or a last resort. Theme four contained three sub‐themes: (a) part of the toolbox; (b) useful but limited tool; and (c) following the patient's lead. The moral distress experienced by HCPs and their essential 'need to fix' patients seems to underpin the varied opinions of ACV. These opinions appear to be formed primarily on the basis of experience, because of the underlying subjectivities and uncertainties. As knowledge and experience with ACV increased, and adverse events were experienced, most HCPs became more cautious in their approach to ACV. Conclusions and Implications: More research is needed to reduce the subjectivities and uncertainties surrounding ACV. The implementation of standardised procedures, processes, and competencies may help to reduce the frequency of adverse events and support a more controlled approach. Widening the focus of the purpose of ACV to include swallowing may help to maximise the potential benefits. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: There is limited and low‐quality evidence for above cuff vocalisation (ACV) and clinical application and practice varies substantially. However, the reasons for this variation in practice and healthcare professionals' (HCPs') opinions of ACV were unclear. What this study adds: HCPs' experiences and opinions of ACV vary as a result of the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV compounded by their personal experiences with it. A need for caution also appears to emerge as HCPs become more familiar and experienced with using ACV. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Implementing standardised procedures, safety processes and competencies may help to compensate for the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV and may reduce the frequency of adverse events. Widening the focus of purpose of ACV, including swallowing in addition to communication, may increase the number of potential candidates and increase the potential benefits of ACV. Using multidisciplinary team (MDT) simulation training for ACV competency development might help to improve MDT working and ACV implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the extent of interference, or difficulty, experienced by adults with communication disorders participating in their day‐to‐day communication activities. To date, there is limited evidence regarding sensitivity of the CPIB for capturing change with intervention in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the following measurement properties of the CPIB in PwPD who received community‐based, standard care, speech‐language therapy focusing on motor speech concerns: Change over time between treatment and observation groups, comparison to patient‐defined ideal and satisfactory targets, comparison of static short form to computerised adaptive testing (CAT), comparison of self to proxy‐rated scores, and comparison to other common PROMs. Methods and Procedures: Forty‐six PwPD (20 treatment/26 observation) completed data collection upon enrolment (pre‐treatment) and 6 months later. In addition to the CPIB, PROMs included the Voice Handicap Index 10‐item short form (VHI‐10), PROMIS Global Health‐Related Quality of Life, Levels of Speech Usage, self‐rated speech severity, and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9). Participants also engaged in qualitative interviews. Forty‐four family members completed proxy CPIB ratings. Outcomes and Results: There were no significant differences between treatment and observation groups on the CPIB pre‐treatment, but there were significant differences post‐treatment. The differences appeared to be largely due to significant gains in the treatment group. No participants reached their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target. Static CPIB short form and CAT scores were not significantly different, with an average of five CAT items administered per participant. Overall group similarities between patient and proxy scores may have obscured wide variability across individual patient‐proxy pairs. Associations between CPIB and VHI‐10, health‐related quality of life, self‐reported speech severity, and depression ranged from weak to moderate. Conclusions and Implications: The CPIB appears to be sensitive to capturing change with intervention, and similar results are obtained with the static short form and CAT formats. One clinical caution is that even with gains observed in the treatment group, no participants obtained their ideal communicative participation goals, and few obtained a satisfactory level of communicative participation. Thus, while current interventions are beneficial, they may not meet the full range of clients' communication needs. While responding to the CPIB through a proxy rater may be feasible, caution is warranted due to concerns about maintaining the autonomy of PwPD. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: The communication disorders associated with Parkinson's disease (PD) can have a negative impact on quality of life and life participation as measured by patient (or person)‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) is one PROM available to use with adults with communication disorders. However, little is known about whether the CPIB captures changes in communicative participation as a result of standard care treatment for people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Use of computerised adaptive testing (CAT), proxy report and comparison to targeted participation outcomes have not been explored. What this study adds to existing knowledge: As a result of this study, we know that the CPIB captured differences between treatment and observation groups after community‐based, standard care speech therapy intervention focusing on motor speech production in PwPD. Static short form and CAT scores did not differ significantly, so the CAT option provides better efficiency requiring, on average, five items to administer compared to the 10‐item short form. Proxy and PwPD scores did not differ as a group, but wide variability was noted. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The CPIB may be a clinically sensitive instrument for capturing changes in communicative participation after treatment. No participants met their ideal CPIB target, and few reached their satisfactory target, suggesting that while current interventions contribute to gains in communicative participation, there are still unmet needs that may call for support and interventions addressing the more complex array of factors affecting communicative participation outcomes for PwPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Exploring the perceptions of individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) towards their brain injury recovery across the continuum of care may offer insights to support engagement with rehabilitation services. Illness narratives are a potentially valuable avenue for examining perceptions of recovery that may influence engagement. AIMS: The aim of this study is to explore the perspective of individuals with severe TBI towards their communication, brain injury and recovery experiences at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post‐injury. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Discourse samples were obtained from 12 participants with severe TBI at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years following injury. A standardised protocol was used to elicit responses relating to perceptions of communication, the brain injury narrative, and perceptions of recovery facilitators. A thematic analysis of the discourse samples was completed. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: experiences of communication recovery are diverse (Theme 1), varied experiences of recovery and rehabilitation (Theme 2), and continuous and lifelong journey of recovery (Theme 3). Primary communication concerns included presence of anomia, dysarthria, conversational topic difficulties, impacts of fatigue and memory difficulties. Illness narratives revealed the importance of re‐establishing a sense of self and the perceived importance of a strong social network post‐injury. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The varied nature of communication challenges and recovery after TBI highlights the need for holistic, multidisciplinary support as well as inclusion of family and friends in the recovery process. Social communication intervention is a perceived priority area for individuals with TBI. Illness narratives may also play a valuable role in therapy and help to shape post‐injury identity. Managing the impacts of fatigue on communication and encouraging individuals to take ownership over their recovery and treatment may also help to improve patient outcomes. Supporting individuals to construct positive brain injury narratives that reaffirm a sense of self and include perspectives of family and friends may offer a potential future avenue for rehabilitation. Tailored but flexible, team‐based service delivery models for individuals with TBI that span from acute to long‐term care are warranted. What this study adds?: What is already known on this subject: Communication recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI) is complex and multifaceted. The perceptions of individuals with TBI toward their communication recovery is largely unknown. To establish rehabilitation services that meet the needs of these individuals, we need to understand how they experience communication recovery. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Social communication interventions were perceived as a priority for intervention by individuals with TBI. Fatigue was identified as perceived barrier to communication recovery. Taking ownership over one's recovery process was revealed as a facilitator of recovery. Illness narratives were found to strengthen post‐injury identity over time. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should prioritise social communication interventions and fatigue management for communication. Facilitating ownership of the recovery process and offering long‐term supports are key aspects of treatment. Supporting positive illness narratives as part of treatment may facilitate post‐injury identity construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]