Search

Background: : Dysphagia is prevalent in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Swallowing intervention to improve or maintain swallowing function is of major importance as dysphagia may considerably impact physical and psycho‐social health. Aims: : A mixed methods systematic review was conducted to summarize and appraise literature reporting (1) effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with PD; and (2) participants' perspectives of swallowing interventions. Methods & Procedures: : Electronic databases were searched systematically in July 2020 for articles published between 2014 and 2020. In addition, studies published between 2000 and 2014 were identified non‐systematically through previous reviews. Peer‐reviewed quantitative and qualitative research in English or German documenting behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with a diagnosis of PD was eligible for inclusion. Participants at all disease stages were included. Behavioural interventions included rehabilitative and compensatory strategies. Studies reporting swallowing outcomes with and without a comparative group were included. For each study, the National Health and Medical Research Council level of evidence was defined. Included studies were critically appraised using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. An integrated synthesis was performed after separate analysis of effect data and data reflecting participants' experiences. This review was conducted based on published JBI methodology and the guideline from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis system was followed. Main Contribution: : A total of 33 studies published in English met the inclusion criteria. Thirty‐one studies reported quantitative data, one was qualitative and one was mixed methods. Intervention effects on swallowing function, swallowing safety and swallowing‐related quality of life were reported for various treatment approaches. Three studies explored how participants perceived the intervention. Overriding themes including subjects' views regarding treatment schedules and levels of effort or comfort associated with the intervention were identified across these studies. Combining evidence of intervention effects and subjects' experiences was possible for one rehabilitative and one compensatory intervention. Conclusions & Implications: : Beneficial effects of swallowing interventions have been reported; however, most experiments were case studies of variable methodological quality. Randomized‐controlled trials with robust methodology to explore treatment effects in larger samples is needed to guide clinical practice. Research reporting subjects' views is scarce. More studies exploring how individuals perceive behavioural interventions for swallowing are necessary to inform clinical decision‐making. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Dysphagia is common in individuals with PD. Swallowing intervention is of major importance as dysphagia may negatively affect physical and psycho‐social health of subjects with PD. What this study adds: Beneficial effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing, including rehabilitative and compensatory strategies, have been reported; however, available data are mostly based on case studies of variable quality. Data on how participants perceive specific behavioural interventions are lacking. Based on the available data, integration of efficacy data and individuals' experiences is limited. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Given the current evidence of intervention effects and individuals' views on behavioural treatment strategies, interventions implemented into clinical practice require careful evaluation on a case‐by‐case basis. More high‐quality research is needed to examine interventions' short‐ and long‐term effects in larger samples to guide clinical practice. In addition to studies evaluating intervention effects, research exploring participants' experiences with interventions is required as a foundation for clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to conduct research that is meaningful to speech and language therapy services and their patients, it is often desirable to conduct the research within routine clinical services. This can require considerable time and commitment from speech and language therapists (SLTs). It is therefore important to understand the impact that such participation in research can have. Aims: To explore the impact of research participation in the Big CACTUS study of self‐managed computerized aphasia therapy conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was sent to SLTs who took the lead role for the study at their NHS Trust to evaluate the impact of study participation in three domains: capacity‐building, research development and health services. The questionnaire, based on the VICTOR framework for evaluating research impact, included Likert scale statements and closed and open‐ended questions. The results from open‐ended questions were coded and analysed using framework analysis in NVivo 12 and the data from closed questions were analysed descriptively. Outcomes & Results: A total of 12 SLTs returned the survey. Nine codes were identified from open‐ended questions and 20 predefined from the literature. Analysis of the responses demonstrated the perceived impact including improvements in practices and access to therapy, investments in infrastructure, increased SLT profile, and impact on research culture among SLTs. The usefulness of the intervention during the COVID‐19 pandemic was also highlighted. Conclusions & Implications: The results suggest participation in Big CACTUS has resulted in improvements in patient care and SLT research capacity and culture in speech and language therapy departments. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Practice‐based research is encouraged to assist with the clinical relevance of the research findings. Participation in research can be seen as an activity that is additional to the core business of patient care and it can be difficult to secure time to participate or conduct research in clinical settings. Impact evaluation initiatives of individual trials facilitate early identification of benefits beyond the trial. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes specific examples of the impact on services, staff and patients from SLT participation and leadership in the Big CACTUS speech and language therapy trial in clinical settings. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study?: Clinical services participating in research may benefit from improved clinical care for patients both during and after the study, an improved professional reputation, and increased research capacity and culture within the clinical settings. [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: National UK guidance makes recommendations for speech and language therapy staffing levels in critical care and rehabilitation settings. Traumatic spinal cord injury patients often require admission primarily to critical care services within a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit but may not receive similar levels of care. Dysphagia and communication difficulties are recognised features of cervical spinal cord injury; however, little is known about access to speech and language therapy services to provide rehabilitation and improve outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the workforce and clinical practices of speech and language therapy services in eight spinal injury units and four major trauma centres in England through an online survey. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was created with 26 multiple‐choice questions across seven sub‐sections, with options for free‐text comments. These were sent to a named speech and language therapy contact at each of the specified units. Responses were uploaded into Excel for analyses, which included descriptive statistics and analysis of themes. Outcomes & Results: Responses were received from 92% (11/12) speech and language therapy services invited, which included seven out of eight spinal injury units and all four major trauma centres. No units met national staffing recommendations. Staff in spinal injury units provided an average of 27 h per week input to the unit compared to 80 h in a major trauma centre. Despite caseload variations, speech and language range of therapy involvement and prioritisation process were equivalent. Access to instrumental assessment varied, with less use of Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in spinal injury units despite its clinical value to the spinal cord injury caseload. Conclusions & Implications: Speech and language therapy services delivering post‐acute and long‐term rehabilitation to spinal cord injury patients are limited by their resources and capacity, which restricts the level of therapy delivered to patients. This may have an impact on clinical outcomes for communication and swallowing impairments. Further evidence is needed of the interventions delivered by speech and language therapists and outcomes will be beneficial alongside benchmarking similar services. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: In England, people who sustain a spinal cord injury are admitted to a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit. Dysphagia and communication impairments are recognised as a complication of cervical spinal cord injury and benefit from speech and language therapy intervention. National recommendations exist for staffing levels, expertise and competencies for speech and language therapists working in critical care and rehabilitation units. What this study adds: This study identified variations in the levels of speech and language therapy staffing, seniority, service delivery and access to instrumental assessments for dysphagia between major trauma centres and spinal injury units. None of the services complied with national staffing recommendations. Clinical implications of this study: Speech and language therapy services in spinal injury units are often available part‐time or have limited access to diagnostic tools which limits the range and intensity of rehabilitation input available. This has clinical implications for outcomes for swallowing and communication as well as long‐term consequences for integrating back into community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The effectiveness of two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) for treatment of 14 children, aged 4;0-6;7 years, with phonologically based speech-sound disorder (SSD) has been previously analysed with severity outcome measures (percentage of consonants correct score, percentage occurrence of phonological processes and phonetic inventory). Considering that the ultimate goal of intervention for children with phonologically based SSD is to improve intelligibility, it is curious that intervention studies focusing on children's phonology do not routinely use intelligibility as an outcome measure. It is therefore important that the impact of interventions on speech intelligibility is explored. Aims This paper investigates the effectiveness of the two treatment approaches (phonological therapy and articulation therapy) using intelligibility measures, both in single words and in continuous speech, as the primary outcome. Methods & Procedures Fourteen children with phonologically based SSD participated in the intervention. The children were randomly assigned to phonological therapy or articulation therapy (seven children in each group). Two assessment methods were used for measuring intelligibility: a word identification task (for single words) and a rating scale (for continuous speech). Twenty-one unfamiliar adults listened and judged the children's intelligibility. Reliability analyses showed overall high agreement between listeners across both methods. Outcomes & Results Significant improvements were noted in intelligibility in both single words (paired t(6) = 4.409, p = 0.005) and continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 2.371, p = 0.018) for the group receiving phonology therapy pre- to post-treatment, but no differences in intelligibility were found for those receiving the articulation therapy pre- to post-treatment, either for single words (paired t(6) = 1.763, p = 0.128) or continuous speech (asymptotic Z = 1.442, p = 0.149). Conclusions & Implications Intelligibility measures were sensitive enough to show changes in the phonological therapy group but not in the articulation therapy group. These findings emphasize the importance of using intelligibility as an outcome measure to complement the results obtained with other severity measures when exploring the effectiveness of speech interventions. This study presents new evidence for the effectiveness of phonological therapy in improving intelligibility with children with SSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]