Search

Background: Research evidence suggests aphasia therapy must be delivered at high intensity to effect change. Comprehensive therapy, addressing all domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, is also called for by people with aphasia and their families. However, aphasia therapy is rarely intense or comprehensive. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) were designed to address this challenge, but such programmes are not widely implemented. Aims: This study surveyed the views of UK‐based speech and language therapists (SLTs) regarding intensive and comprehensive aphasia therapy. It explored definitions of intensive and comprehensive therapy, patterns of provision, views about candidacy and barriers/facilitators. It also investigated awareness of ICAPs and perceived potential of this service model. Differences across UK regions and workplace settings were explored. Methods & Procedures: An e‐survey ran for 5 months. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative free text comments were analysed using content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Two hundred twenty‐seven respondents engaged in the e‐survey. Definitions of intensive aphasia therapy did not reach UK clinical guideline/research‐level thresholds for most of the sample. Those providing more therapy provided definitions with higher standards of intensity. Mean therapy delivered was 128 min/week. Geographical location and workplace setting influenced the amount of therapy delivered. The most frequently delivered therapy approaches were functional language therapy and impairment‐based therapy. Cognitive disability and fatigue were concerns for therapy candidacy. Barriers included lack of resources and low levels of optimism that issues could be solved. 50% of respondents were aware of ICAPs and 15 had been involved in ICAP provision. Only 16.5% felt their service could be reconfigured to deliver an ICAP. Conclusions & Implications: This e‐survey evidences a mismatch between an SLT's concept of intensity and that espoused by clinical guidelines/research. Geographical variations in intensity are concerning. Although a wide range of therapy approaches are offered, certain aphasia therapies are delivered more frequently. Awareness of ICAPs was relatively high, but few respondents had experience of this model or felt it could be executed in their context. Further initiatives are needed if services are to move from a low‐dose or non‐comprehensive model of delivery. Such initiatives might include but not be confined to wider uptake of ICAPs. Pragmatic research might also explore which treatments are efficacious with a low‐dose model of delivery, given that this model is dominant in the United Kingdom. These clinical and research implications are raised in the discussion. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: There is a gap between the high intensity of aphasia treatment provided in research versus mainstream clinical settings. A lower standard of 45 min/day set by UK clinical guidelines is also not achieved. Although speech and language therapists (SLTs) provide a wide range of therapies, they typically focus on impairment‐based approaches. What this study adds: This is the first survey of UK SLTs asking about their concept of intensity in aphasia therapy and what types of aphasia therapy they provide. It explores geographical and workplace variations and barriers and facilitators to aphasia therapy provision. It investigates Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) in a UK context. What are the clinical implications of this work?: There are barriers to the provision of intensive and comprehensive therapy in the United Kingdom and reservations about the feasibility of ICAPs in a mainstream UK context. However, there are also facilitators to aphasia therapy provision and evidence that a small proportion of UK SLTs are providing intensive/comprehensive aphasia therapy). Dissemination of good practice is necessary and suggestions for increasing intensity of service provision are listed in the discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a heterogeneous group of language‐led dementias. People with this type of dementia are increasingly being referred to speech and language therapy (SLT) services. Yet, there is a paucity of research evidence focusing on PPA interventions and little is known about SLT practice in terms of assessment and provision of intervention. Aims: To survey the practices of SLTs in the areas of assessment and intervention for people with PPA. Methods & Procedures: A 37‐item, pilot‐tested survey was distributed electronically through the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT), Clinical Excellence Networks (CENs) and social media networks. Survey items included questions on care pathways, assessment and intervention approaches, and future planning. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 105 SLTs completed the survey. Respondents reported more frequently using formal assessment tools designed for stroke‐related aphasia than for dementia. Informal interviews were reportedly always used during assessment by almost 80% of respondents. Respondents were significantly more likely to use communication partner training than impairment‐focused interventions. Goal attainment was the most commonly used outcome measure. Respondents provided 88 goal examples, which fell into six themes: communication aid; conversation; functional communication; impairment focused; specific strategy; and communication partner. Additionally, respondents reported addressing areas such as future deterioration in communication and cognition, decision‐making and mental capacity, and driving. Ten (9.4%) respondents reported the existence of a care pathway for people with PPA within their service. Conclusions & Implications: This survey highlights the range of current PPA assessment and intervention practices in use by the respondents. Communication partner training is commonly used by the surveyed SLTs, despite the lack of research evidence examining its effectiveness for PPA. There is a need to develop evidence‐based care pathways for people with PPA in order to advocate for further commissioning of clinical services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The psychosocial impact of stroke and aphasia is considerable. Aims To explore UK speech-and-language therapists' (SLTs) clinical practice in addressing the psychological and social needs of people with aphasia, including their experiences of working with mental health professionals. Methods & Procedures A 22-item online survey was distributed to UK SLTs via the British Aphasiology Society mailing list and Clinical Excellence Networks. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results UK SLTs ( n = 124) overwhelmingly considered that addressing psychological well-being (93%) and social participation (99%) was part of their role. To achieve this, they frequently/very frequently used supportive listening (100%) and selected holistic goals collaboratively with clients (87%), including social goals (83%). However, only 42% felt confident in addressing the psychological needs of clients. The main barriers to addressing psychosocial well-being were time/caseload pressures (72%); feeling under-skilled/lack of training (64%), and lack of ongoing support (61%). The main barriers to referring on to mental health professionals were that mental health professionals were perceived as under-skilled when working with people with aphasia (44%); were difficult to access (41%); and provided only a limited service (37%). A main theme from the free-text responses was a concern that those with aphasia, particularly more severe aphasia, received inadequate psychological support due to the stretched nature of many mental health services; mental health professionals lacking skills working with aphasia; and SLTs lacking the necessary time, training and support. The main enablers to addressing psychosocial well-being were collaborative working between SLTs and stroke-specialist clinical psychologists; SLTs with training in providing psychological and social therapy; and ongoing support provided by the voluntary sector. Conclusions & Implications The vast majority of SLTs consider the psychosocial well-being of their clients, and work collaboratively with people with aphasia in selecting holistic goals. It is, however, of concern that most respondents felt they lacked confidence and received insufficient training to address psychological well-being. In order to improve psychological services for this client group, there is a strong case that stroke-specialist mental health professionals should strive to make their service truly accessible to people with even severe aphasia, which may involve working more closely with SLTs. Further, improving the skills and confidence of SLTs may be an effective way of addressing psychological distress in people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]