Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic and the UK government's subsequent coronavirus action plan have fundamentally impacted on every aspect of healthcare. One area that is severely affected is ear, nose and throat (ENT)/laryngology where speech and language therapists (SLTs) engage in a diverse range of practice with patients with a range of conditions, including voice disorders, airway problems, and head and neck cancers (HNCs). A large majority of these patients are in high‐risk categories, and many specialized clinical practices are vulnerable. In addition, workforce and research issues are challenged in both the immediate context and the future. Aims: To discuss the threats and opportunities from the COVID‐19 pandemic for SLTs in ENT/laryngology with specific reference to clinical practice, workforce and research leadership. Methods & Procedures: The relevant sections of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) health systems building blocks framework (2007) were used to structure the study. Expert agreement was determined by an iterative process of multiple‐group discussions, the use of all recent relevant policy documentation, and other literature and shared documentation/writing. The final paper was verified and agreed by all authors. Main Contribution: The main threats to ENT/laryngology SLT clinical services include increased patient complexity related to COVID‐19 voice and airway problems, delayed HNC diagnosis, reduced access to instrumental procedures and inequitable care provision. The main clinical opportunities include the potential for new modes of service delivery and collaborations, and harnessing SLT expertise in non‐instrumental assessment. There are several workforce issues, including redeployment (and impact on current services), training implications and psychological impact on staff. Workforce opportunities exist for service innovation and potential extended ENT/SLT practice roles. Research is threatened by a reduction in immediate funding calls and high competition. Current research is affected by very limited access to participants and the ability to conduct face‐to‐face and instrumental assessments. However, research opportunities may result in greater collaboration, and changes in service delivery necessitate robust investigation and evaluation. A new national set of research priorities is likely to emerge. Conclusions & Implications: The immediate impact of the pandemic has resulted in major disruption to all aspects of clinical delivery, workforce and research for ENT/laryngology SLT. It is unclear when any of these areas will resume operations and whether permanent changes to clinical practice, professional remits and research priorities will follow. However, significant opportunity exists in the post‐COVID era to re‐evaluate current practice, embrace opportunities and evaluate new ways of working. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectENT/laryngology SLTs manage patients with a range of conditions, including voice disorders, airway problems and HNCs. The diverse scope of clinical practice involves highly specialized assessment and treatment practices in patients in high‐risk categories. A large majority of active research projects in this field are patient focused and involve instrumental assessment. The COVID‐19 pandemic has created both opportunities and threats for ENT SLT clinical services, workforce and research.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study provides a discussion of the threats and opportunities from the COVID‐19 pandemic for ENT/laryngology SLT with specific reference to clinical practice, workforce and research leadership.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?The COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in major disruption to all aspects of clinical delivery, workforce and research for ENT/laryngology SLT. Changes to clinical practice, professional remits and research priorities are of indeterminant duration at this time, and some components could be permanent. Significant clinical practice, workforce and research opportunities may exist in the post‐COVID era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telehealth for paediatric speech and language therapy became one of the most salient modes of service delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Evidence for speech and language therapy services via telehealth in comparison to face‐to‐face delivery demonstrates promising outcomes, and studies have begun to explore practitioner and client experiences. However, across the literature, many critical elements of services are overlooked, and there is a need to frame the evidence base within a theoretical model that can draw out practical implications that consider the range of factors having an impact on clinical implementation in real‐world contexts. The APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side‐effects, and Equity) criteria offer such a model. The current study explored practising UK speech and language therapists' (SLTs) clinical experience of telehealth through the lens of the APEASE criteria and aimed to identify recommendations for future service provision from the practitioner perspective. Methods: An online survey structured using the APEASE criteria was developed in collaboration with the UK Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four hundred and thirty‐eight qualified and practicing UK paediatric SLTs completed the survey. Telehealth was broadly acceptable and practicable to SLTs yet there remains some uncertainty about its efficacy and cost‐effectiveness compared to face‐to‐face interventions and how equitable it is for different population groups. SLTs reported that effective implementation of telehealth services was dependent upon several contextual factors; affordability was a perceived barrier to clients having access to telehealth resources, intervention via telehealth was perceived as more acceptable than assessment, and whilst many SLTs welcomed aspects of telehealth, there were concerns about the physical and mental health consequences for practitioners. Six themes for the future development of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy were identified: (1) balanced and tailored services; (2) technology and equipment; (3) information and communication; (4) capacity building; (5) monitoring and evaluation; and (6) leadership and governance. Conclusions: Outcomes highlight promising, concerning and uncertain aspects of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy. SLTs value a flexible and tailored approach to service delivery and recommend that effective leadership, clear communication, ongoing policy and guidance development, upskilling of users and careful evaluation of impact are required to ensure optimal implementation. The APEASE criteria offer a valuable opportunity to enhance and streamline practice and research to ensure sustainable implementation of telehealth in the paediatric speech and language therapy services of tomorrow. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: The COVID‐19 pandemic led to the increased use of telehealth as a main mode of service delivery in paediatric speech and language therapy. Pre‐COVID‐19, evidence for the use of telehealth in this field included small‐scale experimental studies that reported on children with particular disorders and explored telehealth outcomes in comparison to face‐to‐face delivery. The realities of at‐scale clinical practice were not well‐represented, and critical elements of service such as cost‐effectiveness were often overlooked in the paediatric literature. Furthermore, despite emerging global evidence for temporary telehealth responses to the crisis in speech and language therapy, the long‐term and future use of telehealth remains unclear. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The current study applied the lens of the APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side‐effects, and Equity) criteria, which were used in this case to consider socioeconomic, ecological and cultural factors to capture an overarching understanding of the use of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy, and to inform the role of telehealth in future, longer‐term and at‐scale service development. Results indicated emerging trends in UK paediatric speech and language therapists' (SLTs') perceptions of telehealth and SLTs perceived a hybrid approach to service delivery, combining mostly face‐to‐face services with some telehealth, was likely to continue in the future. We identified six themes to guide the future development of telehealth in paediatric speech and language therapy services: (1) balanced and tailored services; (2) technology and equipment; (3) information and communication; (4) capacity building; (5) monitoring and evaluation; and (6) leadership and governance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: UK SLTs believe that speech and language therapy services using telehealth should be reflective, tailored and flexible to meet the requirements and circumstances of the children, young people and families served, as well as the physical and emotional needs of practitioners. SLTs recommend that this service development is clearly communicated to all stakeholders and suggested that those using telehealth should be supported through appropriate training, and ongoing effectiveness should be monitored. Telehealth is here to stay and the APEASE criteria offer a unique opportunity to ensure sustainable models of service delivery; to support co‐ordinated leadership at the local, national and international levels and the development of policy and clinical guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rehabilitation for cognitive‐communication impairments following brain injury can be complex given the heterogenous nature of impairments post injury. Project‐based intervention has the potential to improve communication skills and create a meaningful real‐life context where individuals collaborate to develop a concrete product, which benefits others. While evidence for this intervention is emerging, the COVID‐19 pandemic prompted increased use of telehealth interventions to serve people with brain injury. This paper aims to describe a framework for the delivery of project‐based intervention via telehealth within community rehabilitation settings; and present several case studies of telehealth groups completed in the United Kingdom and the United States during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: A working group was formed to map the components of project‐based intervention onto the rehabilitation treatment specification system (RTSS). This system is a conceptual framework that helps to explain the link between treatment theory and ingredients, allowing a clinician to clearly understand how and why a treatment works. First, a literature search was completed to identify eligible studies on project‐based intervention after brain injury. Second, those studies were thematically mapped onto the RTSS to identify important intervention components. Third, the presence of these components was assessed for community brain injury groups delivered via telehealth in the United Kingdom and United States. These groups were further described using a taxonomy of social activities that help to describe the degree of meaningful social engagement. Results: The literature was described with a thematic RTSS summary. Treatment aims focus on skills training and self‐efficacy, advocacy and self‐empowerment, emotional well‐being and quality of life, and collaboration and community belonging. Treatment ingredients involve a range of cognitive and behavioural supports to deliver meaningful activities and contexts to complete a project. Mechanisms of action involve learning by doing and cognitive and affective information processing. All four telehealth groups conducted in the United Kingdom and United States involved at least three treatment aims, >7 targets, and >8 treatment ingredients. All groups reported positive experiences from activities that involve working collaboratively to help others and contribute to society. Conclusions: Project‐based intervention delivered via telehealth has the potential for supporting people with acquired brain injury to improve their communication skills and engage in meaningful, collaborative activity. Application of the RTSS helps clinicians to understand the aims and therapeutic ingredients (or clinician activities) through which a person with brain injury may achieve specific treatment targets during the rehabilitation process. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Project‐based interventions have the potential to improve cognitive, self‐regulatory, behavioural and social communication skills, renegotiate identity and reaffirm sense of self, providing a positive impact on quality of life for persons with acquired brain injuries. Projects serve as a context for meaningful engagement for individuals in the chronic phase of traumatic brain injury recovery, without fulfilling work, family or social responsibilities. However, most published research has involved in‐person projects and few projects have been delivered via telehealth. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: While past published works have shared core principles of intervention, a variety of projects, durations, dosages and methods have been employed. The current paper provides a framework to support more consistent implementation. By mapping previous project‐based interventions to the RTSS, clinicians will have a better understanding of the aims, targets, ingredients and theoretical underpinnings of project‐based interventions. In the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the shift to telehealth moved interventions to a virtual context. The four case projects in this paper demonstrate that it is possible to conduct project‐based interventions via telehealth and provides a clear description to guide clinicians in their delivery. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This work begins to build the foundation for more rigorous, empirical examination of project‐based interventions. By mapping project‐based interventions to the RTSS, core aims, targets and ingredients are established that can be objectively examined. This investigation also provides a road map for clinicians who wish to implement this complex intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) share a collective goal of ensuring that adults with cognitive–communication disorders (CCD) due to acquired brain injuries (ABI) attain their highest possible level of participation and satisfaction in family, community, social, work and academic communications through evidence‐based interventions. While there is a considerable evidence base to support SLT cognitive–communication interventions, there are also numerous barriers to its implementation. Aims: The first aim is to describe the development of a comprehensive knowledge translation tool that synthesizes evidence‐based practice recommendations for SLT cognitive–communication interventions across the care continuum. The second aim is to critically analyse the barriers to implementation of these interventions and to explore how this knowledge translation tool might assist in overcoming these challenges. Methods & Procedures: We developed a map of 148 clinical practice recommendations extracted from 129 reviews and guidelines called the Cognitive–Communication Evidence Application for SLTs (CCEAS‐Map). The process of developing the CCEAS‐Map included: (1) examination of implementation science frameworks to inform knowledge tool creation; (2) search and synthesis of the evidence provided in reviews and guidelines that met specific criteria; (3) development of a framework to critically analyse and categorize the barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of these clinical recommendations; (4) consultation with potential end users of the CCEAS‐Map, including 16 expert SLTs and eight persons with lived experience (PWLE), regarding the tool's construction, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and the potential of the CCEAS‐Map to address evidence–practice gaps; and (5) refining the CCEAS‐Map based on expert input. Main Contribution: To our knowledge this is the first synthesis of all available clinical recommendations for SLT cognitive–communication interventions for ABI, across all severities of injury, stages along the continuum of care, and areas of CCD practice. The paper presents a novel approach to analysing knowledge–practice gaps: drawing on implementation science tools, analysing barriers and facilitators, and collaborating with end users in designing a knowledge translation tool. Conclusions & Implications: The CCEAS‐Map provides a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence in a format that can facilitate clinical application of the evidence, provide education for all stakeholders, serve as a basis for CCD pathway development, support researcher–clinician collaboration and encourage advocacy at the system level. As a knowledge translation tool, the CCEAS‐Map can promote the availability of SLT services and has the potential to ultimately improve the lives of those with CCD. What this paper Adds: What is already known on this subject: A great deal is known about cognitive–communication deficits incurred after ABI, including their impact on daily functioning, optimal methods for sensitive and ecologically valid assessment, and the efficacy of various speech–language therapy interventions along the care continuum. However, considerable constraints remain that interfere with the application of this evidence to daily SLT practice. A need was identified to develop a knowledge translation tool to help close these evidence–practice gaps. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes the development of the CCEAS‐Map, a critical synthesis of 129 reviews and guidelines, leading to 148 evidence‐based clinical recommendations, which can be used to guide SLT cognitive–communication practice and education, as well as clinical pathway development, and advocacy for systemic changes and other healthcare policy improvements. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The CCEAS‐Map is a clinical knowledge translation tool designed to guide cognitive–communication interventions by linking practice recommendations directly to the current evidence. This paper also offers insights into barriers to SLT intervention across the care continuum and strategies for improving implementation of cognitive–communication best practices, to improve the lives of those living with ABI related disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence should guide decisions in aphasia practice across the continuum of stroke care; however, evidence–practice gaps persist. This is particularly pertinent in the acute setting where 30% of people with stroke will have aphasia, and speech pathologists experience many challenges implementing evidence‐based practice. This has important consequences for people with aphasia and their close others, as well as speech pathologists working in acute settings. Aims: This study protocol details how we will target practice change using a behavioural approach, with the aim of promoting the uptake of synthesized evidence in aphasia management post‐stroke in the acute hospital setting. Methods & Procedures: We will conduct a mixed‐methods before‐and‐after study following the Knowledge‐to‐Action (KTA) framework. Researchers, speech pathologists and people with lived experience of aphasia will collaborate to identify and prioritize practice gaps, and develop and implement changes to clinical practice based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Wheel. Discussion: This study may provide a template for acute stroke services in how to use an implementation science approach to promote the application of synthesized evidence into routine clinical practice to ensure people with aphasia receive high‐quality services. Collaboration among researchers, healthcare providers, people with aphasia and their close others ensures that the identification and targeting of practice gaps are driven by theory, lived experience and the local context. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Synthesized evidence, such as clinical guidelines and consensus statements, provides the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice, yet discrepancies between delivered care and evidence remain. This discrepancy is of note in the acute setting where clinicians report many challenges implementing the best available evidence, combined with a high proportion of people with stroke who will have aphasia (30%). There are many reasons why evidence is not put into practice, and efforts to change clinical practice need to consider these barriers when developing interventions. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study protocol details an implementation science approach to affect clinical practice change, informed by a collaboration of key stakeholders (researchers, speech pathologists, and people with aphasia and their close others). Protocol papers that focus on bridging the gap between evidence and practice are uncommon in communication disorders; moreover, explicit prioritization of practice gaps is a critical but often overlooked aspect of promoting evidence‐based practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This protocol provides insights into how one study site identified and prioritized evidence–practice gaps using a participatory approach. We provide insights into how clinical practice change may occur by describing how we plan to identify priority evidence–practice gaps and develop an intervention to improve the use of aphasia evidence in routine practice. This protocol aims to share an implementation science approach to service improvement that may be replicated across other services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with schizophrenia present with both cognitive impairment as well as language difficulties. There are similarities in the language output of patients with schizophrenia and patients with aphasia, thus a differential diagnosis of patients who present with a question of dual diagnoses can be a clinical challenge. This case report highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to a patient with schizophrenia who benefitted from intervention from both psychiatry and speech–language pathology services due to the patient's unique verbal output. Aims: The primary aim of this case report is to highlight the critical importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in this patient population. The secondary aim is to disseminate an interesting and unique clinical phenomenon whereby the patient demonstrated an awareness of two distinct speech patterns and the unique ability to 'code switch' between them, something not commonly appreciated in this clinical population. Methods & Procedures: This case report describes a patient seen as part of routine clinical care. Information shared was solely observational and involved dissemination of information regarding case history, assessment and treatment plan. No interventions were implemented as a part of this study. Outcomes & Results: Interprofessional communication was critical in order to diagnose a patient with schizophrenia with an atypical speech pattern. The patient's language output did not manifest as a true aphasia but rather as two distinct language patterns that the patient could use at will. This ability to 'code switch' between languages is a unique clinical profile that is atypical of patients with schizophrenia. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Contemporary literature discusses the similarities between the language patterns of patients with aphasia and those with schizophrenia. There has been debate about how to classify and identify the mechanism of schizophrenic language. It is unclear whether the tangential press of speech in schizophrenia is a consequence of a formal thought disorder, or whether it constitutes an actual disorder or expressive language. Additionally, the mechanism for this speech pattern is not well defined in the literature as there is no consensus on whether it is a breakdown in linguistic processing or simply a patient's disordered thoughts being put into words. A less robust literature exists that suggests that there is a cognitive mechanism responsible for these speech patterns, as tangential speech has been linked to poor goal maintenance in other types of cognitive tasks. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study adds an important discussion about the critical importance of interprofessional collaboration when differentially diagnosing this complex patient population. It highlights the importance of the clinical exchange of information between the two disciplines of psychiatry and speech–language pathology about a patient population where clinical information is intertwined in the way described above. Regardless of the cause of the disordered output, what is lacking in the literature is evidence of how to address the complexities of the output of these patients and how to best manage the care of the patient. This study adds a practical clinical approach to collaborating on the assessment and management of this complex patient population. Importantly, it adds a description of a clinical manifestation of the language output of a patient with schizophrenia that we do not believe to have been previously published in the literature. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Implications of this study include a much‐needed shift in the field in two regards. First, to include this patient population in the groups of patients that can benefit from interprofessional collaboration for differential diagnosis and consideration for speech and language therapy. Second, it offers a practical clinical approach to inter‐professional management in this patient population, something the literature is currently lacking. Additionally, publication of this unique clinical manifestation provides foundational knowledge for other clinicians appreciating similar clinical patterns of language output. To our knowledge, this is the first published case in which a patient could volitionally inhibit certain speech characteristics and thus this case study may assist in future differential diagnosis of patients with schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interprofessional collaborative practices (IPCP) are considered to be a crucial factor in the optimal support of young children (3–6 years) with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC). Aims: To investigate IPCP in interventions using a collaborative approach for young children with SLCN in ECEC, by identifying mechanisms within IPCP and how these mechanisms relate to specific context factors and professional and child‐related outcomes. Methods: A realist review of 22 empirical intervention studies, published between 1994 and 2019, was conducted to synthesise context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations, combining context factors, IPCP mechanisms and outcomes at staff and child level. Main Contribution: Reciprocal IPCP mechanisms were reported together with interprofessional intervention practices, whereas one‐directional IPCP mechanisms were restricted to gains in professional development. Our review further suggests that collective ownership of intervention goals, combined with personal cooperation and communication skills of staff, is vital for inclusive practices and functional communication of children with SLCN. Conclusion: Our review has revealed indications for effective IPCP mechanisms, context factors at staff level, and positive outcomes for the professional development of staff working with children with SLCN. In addition, our findings support a link between IPCP and child‐related outcomes regarding speech, language and communication development. Future studies should increase our insight into how practitioners, children and families profit from daily collaborative practices. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Interventions using a collaborative approach for young children (3‐6 years) with SLCN in ECEC are considered to be part of the optimal support of these children. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Conducting a realist review of 22 empirical studies on collaborative intervention offered the possibility to identify specific context factors, IPCP mechanisms and professional and child‐related outcomes and to synthesise CMO configuations. Findings suggest multiple routes from effective delivery of SLCN services to improvement of speech, language and communication development, supporting the suggested beneficial function of collaboration between multiple professions. Collective ownership of intervention goals, combined with personal cooperation and communication skills of staff, seems to be vital for inclusive practices and functional communication of children with SLCN. Reciprocal IPCP mechanisms were reported together with interprofessional intervention practices, whereas one‐directional IPCP mechanisms were restricted to gains in professional development. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: High‐quality collaborative intervention for children with SLCN in requires awareness of and critical reflection on IPCP mechanisms in order to improve outcomes for both professionals and children. Both, institutional structural support and individual communicative and cooperative skills are required to increase interprofessional collaboration with the aim to meet the needs of every individual child with SLCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the compelling case for engaging parents in speech and language therapy, research indicates that speech and language therapists (SLTs) currently have a leading role in the goal‐setting process of therapy for children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Therefore, we set out to develop a tool that aims to support the dialogue between SLTs and parents and enhance shared decision‐making about children's communicative participation goals. We used co‐design techniques with SLT–practitioners to include their perspectives throughout the design process. Although co‐design has been used for some years in healthcare research, it is still a relatively new research methodology in the field of speech and language therapy. Aims: To provide a detailed description of the co‐design process that led to the development of a physical artefact that can support SLTs to engage parents of children with DLD in collaborative goal‐setting. Methods & Procedures: The Design Council's Double Diamond model was used to develop a tool in co‐design, together with eight SLTs, who participated in all stages of the development process. Usability was tested in actual goal‐setting conversations between four SLTs and 11 parents of a child with DLD resulting in stepwise improvements. In addition, usability of the first and final prototypes was tested with five usability criteria that were rated on a 10‐point scale by 64 SLTs. Outcomes & Results: The co‐design process resulted in the development of a physical prototype of the tool called 'ENGAGE', consisting of a metal 'tree trunk' on which parents can stick magnetic 'leaves' containing potential participation goals for their child. The 'tree' shape represents a child's development and opportunities for growth. This first prototype received marks between 7.0 and 8.0 out of 10 on attractiveness, user‐friendliness, safety, functionality and affordability. After several iterations, there were significantly higher marks for attractiveness, user‐friendliness and safety in favour for the final prototype. Marks for functionality and affordability did not change significantly. Conclusions & Implications: As researchers we usually develop pen‐and‐paper tools, interview protocols, apps or questionnaires to support clinical practice. Including the SLTs' perspectives in the design process resulted in a tree‐shaped physical artefact that, according to the SLTs, helps to order information and encourages and guides their dialogue with parents. We strongly advocate the inclusion of end‐users in developing innovative user‐centred tools for speech and language therapy and we hope that this will become widespread practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Collaborative goal‐setting is at the heart of family‐centred speech and language therapy. However, research indicates that goal‐setting processes for children with DLD are currently predominantly therapist‐led, instead of family‐centred. Reasons for the lack of parental engagement are that effective communication with parents throughout the goal‐setting process appears to be complex, and parents are not always invited and supported to engage in this. We used co‐design to develop a tool that aims to support SLTs in their dialogue about therapy goals with parents. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This paper provides an example of applying a co‐design approach for the development of a shared goal‐setting tool for SLTs and parents of young children with DLD. The co‐design approach enabled us to incorporate needs, experiences and ideas of SLTs in the design process. We report the four stages in the co‐design process from (1) discovering the needs, wants and desires of the people involved, (2) defining the problem that SLTs experience, (3) developing several solutions and selecting the best solution, and (4) developing and testing the prototype. The detailed description of this process can add to an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of a design process that includes the perspective of end‐users. The result is a physical artefact representing a tree, which aims to support the conversation between SLTs and parents about a child's communicative participation. Items describing facets of communicative participation are printed on 'leaves' that can be hung on a tree trunk by parents. The tree shape is a positive metaphor for the growth and development of a child. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study describes how SLTs can be meaningfully involved as partners in a co‐design research approach. Incorporating experience from clinical practice was highly relevant since our study aimed to create a solution that would support goal‐setting and service delivery by SLTs. We want to show that it is inspiring and beneficial for SLTs to partner with researchers in innovation of their own clinical practice and provide examples of co‐design activities that illustrate the involvement and influence of end‐users in a design process. Including the perspective of SLTs in the development of a new tool to facilitate the dialogue between SLTs and parents of children with DLD regarding therapy goal‐setting is expected to add value and enhance its implementation in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists and nurses need to work together to keep patients with swallowing difficulties safe throughout their acute stroke admission. Speech and language therapists make recommendations for safe swallowing following assessment and nurses put recommendations into practice and monitor how patients cope. There has been little research into the everyday realities of ongoing swallow safety management by these two disciplines. Patient safety research in other fields of healthcare indicates that safety can be enhanced through understanding the cultural context in which risk decisions are made. Aims: To generate new understanding for how speech and language therapists (SLTs) and nurses share information for ongoing management of swallows safety on stroke units. Methods & Procedures: An ethnographic methodology involving 40 weeks of fieldwork on three stroke wards in England between 2015 and 2017. Fieldwork observation (357 h) and interviews with 43 members of SLT and nursing staff. Observational and interview data were analysed iteratively using techniques from the constant comparative method to create a thematically organized explanation. Outcomes & Results: An explanation for how disciplinary differences in time and space influenced how SLT and nursing staff shared information for ongoing management of swallow safety, based around three themes: (1) SLTs and nurses were aligned in concern for swallow safety across all information‐sharing routes; however, (2) ambiguity was introduced by the need for the information contained in swallowing recommendations to travel across time, creating dilemmas for nurses. Patients could improve or deteriorate after recommendations were made and nurses had competing demands on their time. Ambiguity had consequences for (3) critical incident reporting and relationships. SLTs experienced dilemmas over how to act when recommendations were not followed. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides new understanding for patient safety dilemmas associated with the enactment and oversight of swallowing recommendations in context, on stroke wards. Findings can support SLTs and nurses to explore together how information for ongoing dysphagia management can be safely implemented within ward realities and kept up to date. This could include considering nursing capacity to act when SLTs are not there, mealtime staffing and SLT 7‐day working. Together they can review their understanding of risk and preferred local and formal routes for learning from it. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: It is known that information to keep swallowing safe is shared through swallowing recommendations, which are understood to involve a balance of risks between optimizing the safety of the swallow mechanism and maintaining physiological and emotional health. There is increasing appreciation from patient safety research, of the importance of understanding the context in which hospital staff make decisions about risk and patient safety. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The paper provides new empirical understanding for the complexities of risk management associated with SLT and nursing interactions and roles with respect to ongoing swallow safety. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Findings can underpin SLT and nurse discussion about how swallow safety could be improved in their own settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While implementation studies in aphasia management have shown promising improvements to clinical practice, it is currently unknown if aphasia implementation outcomes are sustained and what factors may influence clinical sustainability. Aims: To evaluate the sustainment (i.e., sustained improvement of aphasia management practices and domains influencing clinicians' practice) and sustainability (i.e., factors influencing sustainability) outcomes of the Acute Aphasia IMplementation Study (AAIMS). Methods & Procedures: A convergent interactive mixed‐methods sustainability evaluation was conducted on two previously delivered implementation interventions (AAIMS). The AAIMS interventions were targeted at improving either written aphasia‐friendly information provision (Intervention A) or collaborative goal‐setting (Intervention B). Outcomes were collected 2 and 3 years post‐implementation, addressing the research questions of sustainment (e.g., medical record audits and behavioural constructs questionnaires) and sustainability (e.g., post‐study focus groups and organizational readiness surveys). Quantitative sustainability data were compared with post‐implementation data, allowing for sustainment to be determined. Clinicians' perspectives on sustainability outcomes and challenges were analysed using framework analysis and integrated with the quantitative findings. Outcomes & Results: A total of 35 speech–language therapists (SLTs) from four hospitals participated. The medical records of 79 patients were audited in the sustainability period compared with the 107 medical records audited during AAIMS. Overall, there was variable sustainment of the target behaviours; implementation for Intervention A was not sustained at either sustainability time point (2018 = 47.8% decrease; 2019 = 22.78% decrease), but implementation for Intervention B was sustained at both time points (2018 = 7.78% increase; 2019 = 18.1% increase). There was a pattern of sustained change in the behaviour change domains targeted by the implementation interventions, where scores of the targeted domains increased over time (0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.05 to 0.30) and scores of the non‐targeted domains declined (−0.03, 95% CI = −0.11 to 0.04). Factors influencing sustainability were mainly related to 'processes', 'the inner context' and 'SLT characteristics', and these interacted dynamically to account for variation between teams. Conclusions & Implications: Implementation outcomes (i.e., practice changes) were not sustained to the same level for three of the four participating SLT teams, with variable or partial sustainment most common. While the factors influencing sustainability differed depending on the context and individuals involved, the most important factor influencing outcomes seemed to be the level to which behaviour‐change processes and strategies were embedded within the SLT department. Future implementation studies should incorporate sustainability measures from the onset and include follow‐ups and monitoring systems to help support sustained change in the long term. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: In post‐stroke aphasia management, there are few examples of long‐term sustainability of implementation outcomes. It is therefore unknown what factors are potentially important to sustain implementation of best‐practice recommendations in aphasia services. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: There is potential for implementation outcomes to be sustained long term, but sustainment is impacted by a range of factors. Ongoing facilitation or follow‐up after initial implementation may to useful to promote sustainment, but is not essential if processes are sufficiently embedded. Gradual implementation into practice may lead to better sustainment than rapid change that is quickly forgotten. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Future implementation efforts should incorporate sustainability measures from the onset. Applying a sustainability framework was useful to guide evaluations and explore factors influencing the sustainment outcomes and is recommended for those interested in sustainability. Results from our evaluation can be used to guide refinement and support future development of sustainable implementation interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech–language pathologists are often involved in the assessment and management of communication, cognition and swallowing deficits in people with Parkinson's. However, speech–language pathologists' self‐perceived competency levels in serving people with Parkinson's remain elusive, especially in the Indian context where there is an increasing disability burden due to Parkinson's disease. Additionally, the challenges faced by speech–language pathologists in India to provide efficient services to this population are unidentified. Aims: To determine speech–language pathologists' self‐perceived competence and challenges faced when providing services to people with Parkinson's in India. Methods & Procedures: A survey questionnaire was sent to speech–language pathologists through emails and social media asking them questions to evaluate self‐perceived competency in serving people with Parkinson's and to identify the challenges to their service delivery. A total of 69 speech–language pathologists responded to the survey. Outcomes & Results: The majority of respondents reported to be competent in dealing with various domains of assessment and management of people with Parkinson's. Although competent, they reportedly faced a few challenges during their service delivery. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides an insight into the speech–language pathologists' self‐perceived competency in serving people with Parkinson's in India, and also identifies the challenges related to interprofessional service delivery. The findings of the study have educational and clinical implications. What this paper adds: The study delineates speech–language pathologists' self‐perceived competency in working with people with Parkinson's in India, a nation that is seeing a constant rise in the incidence of Parkinson's disease.The study the unique challenges within India to speech–language pathologists' service delivery for people with Parkinson's, thus having educational and clinical implications in Parkinson's disease care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Huntington's disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by a triad of motor, cognitive and psychological symptoms, leading to a gradual breakdown of communication skills. Few studies have investigated how people affected by HD and their professional caregivers, for example, medical doctors, physiotherapists and nurses, experience the patients' gradual loss of speech and language. Aims: To examine communication‐related experiences of patients and professional caregivers. Experiences with speech therapy and the use of augmentative and alternative communication aids (AAC) were also investigated. Methods & Procedures: Seven individuals with HD and seven professional caregivers were interviewed individually, using a semi‐structured interview guide. Transcripts were analysed using a conventional content analysis, and the results presented in three main categories. Outcomes & Results: Most individuals with HD were aware of having communication difficulties, struggling with understanding others as well as being understood. This was confirmed by professional caregivers, who also raised ethical issues encountered when patients struggled with communication. Both groups talked about external factors (such as noise or crowded social settings) as disrupting communication, and shared recommendations on how people in general, and speech and language therapists (SLTs) in particular, could optimize communication. Very few patients had received information about communication aids, and none was using AACs. Professional caregivers underlined the importance of interdisciplinary collaborations, including SLTs, in order to optimize care. Conclusions & Implications: Findings shed a light on everyday communication challenges faced by people with HD and their professional caregivers, and the lack of implementation of communication aids in this group. The dramatic impact of HD on patients' communication skills underscores the need to include SLTs in the follow‐up of this patient group, ideally from the early stages of the disease, while the patient is still capable of voicing his/her own wishes and thoughts. Future research that explores how to optimize communication and implement the use of AACs for individuals with HD is needed. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectAlthough the ability to communicate gradually deteriorates in individuals affected by Huntington's disease (HD), there is little knowledge about how affected individuals experience the loss of speech and language skills. Interdisciplinary care is recognised as essential for this patient group. However, professional caregivers' thoughts and experiences of communicating with their patients have not been fully explored. Recent years have seen a rapid growth of available communication supporting technologies that could potentially be helpful for individuals with HD, but limited attention has been given to this subject.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeWhat do we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before the results highlight that patients are aware of problems with speech and language even in early phases of the disease, and include patients' personal outlook on problems with communication. Professional caregivers raised ethical issues encountered when patients struggled with communication. Both groups described specific strategies that could facilitate communication. There was a significant lack of experience and knowledge about augmentative and alternative communication aids (AACs).What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Clinical implications of this study. The introduction of communication aids in the follow‐up of patients with HD needs to be discussed with the patients in the early phases of the disease, and implemented while the individual still has the capacity to learn and take advantage of alternative communication support. Results underline the importance of including speech and language therapists (SLTs) into multidisciplinary care of patients with HD. SLTs should be available also for professional caregivers who need advice on how to facilitate conversations and social interactions, in order to optimise care of patients with HD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While evidence‐based practice is widely endorsed by researchers, clinicians and professional bodies as a guiding framework for the provision of quality care to clients, the reliance on efficacy evidence may overshadow the benefits of other knowledge forms in supporting intervention design and evaluation. Due consideration needs to be given to varied forms of evidence, including practice and patient evidence. Stuttering intervention for adults is one area in which there is a significant shortage of practice‐based research literature. Aims: This study aimed to add to practice evidence by exploring the perspectives of international researchers and clinical experts on the components of effective stuttering intervention. This practice‐based evidence will be used to inform the multi‐stakeholder co‐design of an evidence‐based stuttering intervention for adults. Methods & Procedures: Criteria defining expertise were developed based on a review of the literature. Experts were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Seventeen international experts were approached, of which 10 completed semi‐structured interviews. Interview questions were developed and centred on five topics: the nature of stuttering; efficacy evidence base; intervention techniques, principles of effective intervention; and outcome measurement. Outcomes & Results: Inductive thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: 'One size doesn't fit all', 'A really collaborative relationship where we are both bringing our sense of expertise to this' and 'Some of the most frustrating things'. Conclusions & Implications: These findings emphasize the complexity of stuttering intervention, the need for individually tailored treatments and the role of multiple factors, beyond therapeutic technique, that influence treatment outcomes. Findings also demonstrate the benefit of collecting practice‐based evidence to support clinical decision‐making and intervention evaluation. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectEvidence‐based practice involves the synthesis of multiple forms of knowledge, including research, practice and patient evidence to support clinical decision‐making and intervention evaluation. Research evidence for stuttering intervention effectiveness is the dominant form of knowledge in stuttering literature, while other forms such as practice and patient evidence are less represented.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study provides valuable practice evidence for effective stuttering intervention components, including individually tailored intervention, person‐related factors and therapeutic alliance. It highlights the need to consider multiple forms of knowledge to guide the design and evaluation of intervention.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Clinicians should adopt a person‐centred care approach when designing and evaluating an intervention for adults who stutter. Multiple factors beyond therapeutic technique influence treatment outcomes and should be incorporated into any intervention for adults who stutter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are increasingly engaging in school‐based interventions targeting children with language difficulties. Collaborative work between teachers and SLTs has shown to be beneficial in fostering language development in all children. Both groups of professionals have different but complementary roles in offering language support, according to children's needs. Effective collaboration between SLTs and teachers requires both parties to understand their roles and practices in schools. However, little is known about language support practices in Lebanese preschools and the roles of SLTs in these contexts. Aims: (1) To explore the perceptions and reported practices among preschool teachers (pre‐KTs) to support language development; (2) to investigate the current practices of SLTs in preschools; and (3) to understand pre‐KTs' and SLTs' perceptions of the SLTs' role in Lebanese preschools. Method & Procedures: Using a quantitative method, the study reports the results of two questionnaires (one for pre‐KTs and one for SLTs) that were developed based on a review of the academic literature and adapted to the contextual realities. Questionnaires were completed in hard or soft copy by pre‐KTs and through an online survey by SLTs. Outcomes & Results: The questionnaires were completed by 1259 out of 1442 pre‐KTs from 175 Lebanese preschools, and by 200 out of 391 SLTs from across Lebanon. First, the findings show that both professional groups recognize they have a role in supporting language development. Second, differences in reported practices were identified regarding language strategies for children with communication needs. In particular, pre‐KTs reported less use of specific language strategies targeting children with language difficulties, while SLTs reported that their practices in schools remain primarily focused on children with communication needs. Finally, the analysis of perceptions showed a lack of acknowledgement of the SLTs' role in the prevention of communication and language disorders among all children. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides an overview of the perceptions and reported practices of language development support in Lebanese preschools. The majority of SLTs and pre‐KTs acknowledge their role in supporting language development. However, the slight differences in perceptions of SLT roles in prevention interventions highlight the necessity for SLTs to promote their active involvement in services targeting all children. Future research will investigate how SLTs are beginning to reconceptualize their role in intervention for preschool children. This will help to better define SLTs' roles and responsibilities in educational settings and foster effective professional collaboration. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectCollaboration between teachers and SLTs has been shown to be beneficial in supporting language among all children. The way SLTs and pre‐KTs view each other's roles could result in more effective professional collaboration. The SLT profession in Lebanon emerged about 20 years ago, yet SLTs are still struggling to define a framework for the scope of their practice in Lebanese preschools and to increase awareness of the relevance of their intervention in language.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThe results revealed that there are major agreements between pre‐KTs and SLTs concerning the support of language development in preschools. However, the findings highlight slight differences in the perception of the SLTs' role in the prevention of communication, language and literacy disorders in educational settings. It seems that their role is more commonly acknowledged for children with identified language and communication needs. Moreover, despite the strong agreement between both professionals on the role of the SLT to target all children, SLTs' practices in preschools are still mostly limited to meeting only referred and diagnosed needs in children.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?This study's findings contribute to a better understanding of the perceptions regarding the roles and practices of both groups of professionals in language development. The differences in how the SLTs' roles are perceived could lead to a more difficult implementation of collaborative language practices in preschools. It is therefore necessary to ensure a better understanding of the roles played by professionals, who could receive the relevant training in undergraduate education programmes. There is also a pressing need to provide a clearer definition of SLTs' roles in educational settings by reconceptualizing them into a preventive approach in collaboration with teachers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is seen as a key element in family‐centred models. Collaboration can have positive impacts on parental and children's outcomes. However, collaborative practice has not been well described and researched in speech and language therapy for children and may not be easy to achieve. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of collaborative practice with parents, how it can be achieved and how it can impact on outcomes. This understanding could support practitioners in daily practice with regard to achieving collaborative practice with parents in different contexts. Aims: To set a research agenda on collaborative practice between parents and SLTs in order to generate evidence regarding what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Methods & Procedures: A realist evaluation approach was used to make explicit what collaborative practice with parents entails. The steps suggested by the RAMESES II project were used to draft a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. This process generates explicit hypotheses which form a potential research agenda. Discussion & Conclusions: A preliminary programme theory of collaborative practice with parents was drafted using a realist approach. Potential contextual factors (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) were presented which could be configured into causal mechanisms to help explain what works for whom in what circumstances. CMO configurations were drafted, based on the relevant literature, which serve as exemplars to illustrate how this methodology could be used. In order to debate, test and expand our hypothesized programme theory for collaborative practice with parents, further testing against a broader literature is required alongside research to explore the functionality of the configurations across contexts. This paper highlights the importance of further research on collaborative practice with parents and the potential value of realist evaluation methodology. What this paper addsCurrent policy in education, health and social care advocates for family‐centred care and collaborative practice with parents. Thereby, collaborative practice is the preferred practice for SLTs and parents. In this paper, we explore collaborative practice and use a realist evaluation approach to achieve the aim of setting a research agenda in this area. Researchers use realist evaluation, a methodology originally developed by Pawson and Tilley in the 1990s, to explore the causal link between interventions and outcomes, summarized as what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Realist evaluation provides a framework to explore configurations between contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O). We used this methodology to take a first step at making explicit what collaborative practice is and how it might be achieved in different contexts. We did this by drafting a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice, where we made explicit what context factors and mechanisms might influence outcomes in collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. Based on this programme theory, we argue for the need to develop a research agenda on collaborative practice with parents of children with speech, language and communication needs. The steps between a programme theory and a research agenda could entail exploring each CMO, or step in the programme theory, and evaluating it against the existing literature—both within and beyond speech and language therapy—to see how far it stands up. In this way, gaps could be identified that could be converted into research questions that would stimulate debate about a research agenda on collaborative practice. Understanding how collaborative practice can be achieved in different contexts could support SLTs to use mechanisms to optimise collaborative practice intentionally and tailor interventions to the specific needs of families, thereby enhancing collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subjective well‐being (SWB) and quality of life (QOL) are intricately related constructs. Recent research shows both constructs share some facets, but are distinct entities. It is unclear, both internationally and in the Netherlands, if and how SLTs address SWB in clinical practice. The current study was set up to explore Dutch SLTs' perceptions of SWB in relation to the management of people with aphasia. Aims: To describe how Dutch SLTs, working with people with aphasia in a private practice or a healthcare setting, address patient's SWB during diagnosis and treatment, and to identify barriers and facilitators they experience when addressing SWB. Methods & Procedures: A qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. SLTs from private practices and healthcare settings were invited to participate in individual interviews and a focus group. The data were analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive methods. Outcomes & Results: Eight SLTs participated in the study. The SLTs' experiences were captured in four themes that emerged from the data: (1) SWB is a multifaceted concept and depends on patient‐specific factors: premorbid factors, life priorities and time post‐stroke; (2) SLTs experience more responsibility for patients' SWB than their profession allows; (3) collaboration between SLTs and patients, patients' network and other healthcare professionals is required to address SWB during diagnosis and treatment; and (4) misinterpretations are inevitable when SLTs or the patients' network address patients' SWB. Conclusions & Implications: The results showed that SLTs feel responsible for addressing SWB in the management of people with aphasia. Their perception of the concept of SWB is similar to the definition used in the literature and is multifaceted. They feel responsible for the part of SWB that is related to communicative functioning, but less so for the more heuristic aspects of SWB. This is related to their experienced limitation of influence on SWB, which for some leaves them feeling out of depth and uncertain about boundaries between professionals. Addressing SWB in a multidisciplinary team is therefore considered important in order to adequately and fully capture someone's SWB and reduce to clinicians' experienced burden and responsibility. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectRecent studies suggest that quality of life measures may lack facets related to subjective well‐being (SWB). Aphasia is likely to impact on SWB of a stroke survivor, but it is unclear if and how SWB is addressed by speech and language therapists in diagnosis, and treatment of Dutch PWA.What this study addsThis study provides insight into the operationalization of SWB in Dutch clinical practice, including barriers SLTs experience when addressing SWB.Clinical implications of this studyMonitoring and influencing SWB of people with aphasia is a complex process, that SLTs consider only possible in multi‐disciplinary teams. Clear guidelines on roles and responsibilities between various disciplines involved are necessary to improve care for people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inter‐professional collaboration (IPC) has been recommended for many years as a means by which the needs of children with developmental language disorders (DLD) can be met at school. However, effective IPC remains difficult to achieve and our knowledge of how to support it is limited. A shared understanding between those involved has been identified as critical to IPC. Aims: To examine the literature, as one source of data, for evidence of a shared understanding between the fields of speech and language therapy (SLT) and education about children with DLD and how such needs can best be met at school. Methods & Procedures: An integrative review of the literature was undertaken. A systematic search of the published, peer‐reviewed literature (between 2006 and 2016) was conducted for empirical and theoretical papers and a manual search was undertaken to obtain a representative sample of policy/professional guidelines. A total of 81 papers across SLT and education were included in the review. The papers were scrutinized using a qualitative content analysis. Main Contribution: Although some commonality between perspectives in the literature was identified, differences between the fields dominated. These differences related to how DLD is conceptualized; how children's needs are assessed; which outcomes are prioritized and how best these outcomes can be achieved. We also found differences about what constitutes useful knowledge to guide practice. We suggest that the nature of the differences we identified in the literature may have negative implications for practitioners wishing to collaborate to meet the needs of children with DLD in school. The perspectives of practising SLTs and teachers need to be sought to determine whether the findings from the literature reflect dilemmas in practice. Conclusions: Effective IPC is essential to meet the needs of children with DLD in school; yet, it remains difficult to achieve. Our review of the literature across SLT and education indicates evidence of a lack of shared understanding about DLD. If these differences are also evident in practice, then a conceptual model to support IPC may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Children with cerebral palsy often show significant communication impairment due to limited or absent speech. Further, motor impairment can restrict the use of movement, including pointing, to signal interest and intent. For some children, controlled gaze can be an effective 'point-substitute': such 'eye-pointing' can be used to request items, establish mutual interest in an event, or select vocabulary within an alternative or augmentative communication (ACC) system. However, in clinical practice there is a lack of clarity about how the term 'eye-pointing' is used, how 'eye-pointing' is recognized or how it relates to social development. Aims To present a clinical description of the term 'eye-pointing' with reference to children with severe cerebral palsy who cannot speak or finger-point. To consider this description within a wider discussion of the importance of gaze in communication development. Methods & Procedures Cumulative clinical observations during assessment of children referred to a specialist multidisciplinary communication clinic have provoked discussion between the authors on what factors precipitate use of the term 'eye-pointing' in young children with severe cerebral palsy. In particular, discussion has centred on whether use of the term is appropriate in individual cases and whether guidance is available about how gaze should be observed in this developmentally vulnerable group of children. A literature search was also conducted in order to explore whether the use and meaning of the term is established. Conclusions & Implications In interactions with non-speaking children, determining whether a child is using eye-gaze communicatively requires observation and interpretation of several factors. These processes will be informed by reflection on what is known about other aspects of the child's communication and interaction skills. Within the literature, the term 'eye-pointing' is sometimes used when describing the communication functions of individuals using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems, and is occasionally qualified by a definition. No papers have been found that set out a clinical description universally applicable to children with severe motor impairment. Moreover, guidance is lacking on how possible episodes of 'eye-pointing' might be confidently distinguished from other episodes of directed gaze in young, developing communicators. The discussion of the term makes reference to the importance of gaze in early communication development, and explores factors that might influence gaze and its interpretation in young children with cerebral palsy. A description of eye-pointing for this group is offered. The authors suggest that this will bring practical benefits to those supporting the communication development of children with severe cerebral palsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech-language interventions are often complex in nature, involving multiple observations, variable outcomes and individualization in treatment delivery. The accepted procedure associated with randomized controlled trials (RCT) of such complex interventions is to develop and implement a manual of intervention in order that reliable treatment delivery can be achieved. Aims: To present the rationale, structure and content of an intensive manualized intervention as implemented within an RCT for children with complex pragmatic and social communication needs; to investigate factors associated with implementation in a mainstream school environment; and to determine treatment fidelity. Methods & Procedures: The manualized SCIP intervention, including procedures for developing individualized treatment plans, was developed and then implemented within an RCT with 57 school-aged children with complex pragmatic communication needs (CwPLI). The paper describes the delivery protocol, staffing requirements, and content and structure of the intervention. A mapping procedure for individualization of intervention and the implemented components of intervention are presented. The findings from a school-therapy alliance checklist for recording factors affecting implementation in a school context are also reported. Treatment fidelity was carried out using measures of delivered versus planned treatment content and quality of therapy. Outcomes & Results: The manual was effective at detailing intervention procedures and allowing for development of individualized treatment plans whilst maintaining satisfactory treatment fidelity. Treatment planning and delivery required continuous specialist speech and language therapist input with assistants needing substantive training and supervision. Key components of intervention for CwPLI were therapies aimed at improving conversation skills, narrative construction, comprehension monitoring, understanding of social cues and metapragmatic awareness. The school-therapy alliance checklist indicated high rates of therapist-education staff and therapist-parent liaison. Parents were nearly always involved in treatment planning though only half-attended therapy sessions. Learning support provision in schools for participating children was highly variable. Conclusions & Implications: Predetermining theoretical background, structure, and content in a treatment manual contributed towards the quality and reliability of intervention within the context of an RCT. The implementation of SCIP intervention in a broader clinical context is discussed with reference to staff expertise, the therapeutic process and the essential ingredients of social communication intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is widely accepted that service users should be actively involved in new service developments, but there remain issues about how best to consult with them and how to reconcile their views with those of service providers. Aims: This paper uses data from The Aphasia in Scotland study, set up by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to identify the direction of the development of services for people with aphasia in Scotland. It examines the views both of those who provide and of those who receive those services. Methods & Procedures: The study integrated findings from a questionnaire to all speech and language therapists treating people with aphasia across Scotland with findings from focus groups with service users and aphasia practitioners. Outcomes & Results: Three themes were identified: (1) public and professional awareness of the impact of aphasia on the individual and their family; (2) current service provision and gaps in services; and (3) directions for the future development of services and barriers to change. Although the impact of aphasia is well recognized amongst most professionals (that is, not just speech and language therapists), considerable concern was expressed about the level of knowledge amongst professionals who do not specialize in stroke care and about public awareness of aphasia. Service providers indicated a shift in the model of service delivery of which the service users were largely unaware. Although the majority of speech and language therapists spend most of their time providing one-to-one therapy, and this is valued by service users, there is undoubtedly an emerging shift towards a focus on broader social function and the inclusion of the person with aphasia in supportive social networks. This creates tensions because of the existing pressure for individualized models of delivery. Concern was expressed by practitioners, although not echoed by patients, about the transition from the acute sector to primary care. Practitioners also expressed concern about the introduction of more recent services like NHS 24 and e-health initiatives, which rely on means of communication that may be particularly challenging for people with aphasia. Conclusions & Implications: The findings from this study indicate that although there are clearly common perspectives, the views of people with aphasia about services do not necessarily coincide with those of service providers. This is an important consideration when initiating consultation and highlights the need for clarity on the part of practitioners in identifying the aims and objectives of their ervices as far as people with aphasia are concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]