Search

Background: Stroke profoundly affects quality of life (QOL), including loss of employment, reduced social activity, shrinking social networks and low mood. Dysgraphia (impaired writing) is a common symptom of aphasia yet is rarely targeted in rehabilitation. Recent technological advances might challenge this, since much communication is now conducted digitally through writing. The rehabilitation of writing may therefore help to address the wider consequences of stroke and aphasia. Aims: Can assistive technology (AT) training for people with dysgraphia: (1) improve written output, and are gains achieved only with AT? (2) improve reading comprehension scores, and are gains achieved only with AT? and (3) affect social participation, mood or QOL Methods and Procedures: Design A mixed‐methods, repeated measures, small group study design was adopted (qualitative outcomes will be reported elsewhere). Participants: Recruited from community settings, for example, Stroke Association communication support groups. Inclusion criteria: over 18 years old, aphasia due to stroke, acquired dysgraphia, writing more impaired than speech, fluent English prior to stroke, access to computer and Internet. Exclusion criteria: currently receiving speech and language therapy, significant cognitive impairment, neuromuscular/motor‐speech impairments/structural abnormalities, developmental dyslexia, uncorrected visual/auditory impairments. Procedures: Screening and diagnostic assessments at time T1 (first baseline). Outcome measures at T1; repeated at T2 (second baseline), T3 (end of intervention), T4 (3‐month follow up). Social participation assessment and cognitive monitoring at T2, T3, T4. Intervention: Seven–ten hours individual therapy weekly and additional email support. Participants were trained to operate Dragon NaturallySpeaking (speech to text package) and ClaroRead (read writing aloud). Outcome measures were administered on pen and paper (control) and on computer, with AT enabled only at T3, T4. Outcomes and Results: Computer narrative writing was significantly improved by AT training (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 8.27, p = 0.041), indicating a compensatory effect of AT. Though reading comprehension significantly improved in the computer condition (Friedman's χ2 (3) = 21.07, p = 0.001), gains could not be attributed to the AT. Gains were achieved only when measures were administered on the keyboard, with AT enabled. Thus, a compensatory rather than remediatory effect was suggested. Social network size significantly increased; there were no significant changes in mood/QOL. Individual success rates varied. Conclusion and Implications: The customisable AT training was acceptable to participants and resulted in significantly improved narrative writing. Compensatory AT interventions are a useful adjunct to remediatory writing interventions and may particularly support functional writing. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Writing is rarely spared in aphasia and may present as the most impaired communication modality. Yet, people with aphasia report that writing is seldom included in their rehabilitation. Many communication activities are now conducted digitally through writing, therefore rehabilitation of this is more important than ever before. This study sought to address whether an assistive technology (AT) software package can improve writing and whether any changes were compensatory or remediatory. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This group study found that AT training led to gains in written discourse and social network in people with aphasia and dysgraphia. Gains were not replicated in handwritten tasks, suggesting this was a compensatory therapeutic approach. What are the clinical implications of this work?: AT programs such as this may present speech and language therapists with a practical, pragmatic adjunct to writing or typing therapy, particularly for clients with chronic, intractable impairments for whom remediatory therapy may have a low chance of success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is beginning to shed light on the practices employed by speech‐language therapists (SLTs) for the management of acquired dysarthria. However, studies that explore SLTs' satisfaction with the effectiveness of current therapies and their interest in new treatment methods for this population have not been carried out. One potential new method is neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES): the pool of evidence for its use in rehabilitation is increasing, yet it has not been widely explored for use with dysarthria. Aim: To extend the understanding of acquired dysarthria management practices employed by SLTs across the globe and determine their satisfaction with current therapy options. To explore their interest in using NMES with this population. Methods and Procedures: A cross‐sectional international online survey was developed and disseminated to SLTs working with adults with acquired dysarthria through international professional associations. The survey collected information on demographic characteristics, dysarthria management practices, satisfaction with treatment effectiveness and interest in and knowledge of NMES. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and quantitative content analysis. Outcomes and Results: A total of 211 SLTs (North America, 48.8%; Europe, 36%; Asia, 8.1%; Oceania, 5.7%; Africa, 0.9%; South America, 0.5%) completed the survey in full. Management practices varied considerably. There was a clear preference for informal assessments, mainly oral‐motor examinations, focusing on body functions and structures. The majority of respondents rejected the use of non‐speech oral motor exercises as a clinical or carryover exercise. Variable satisfaction with current speech subsystem treatments was noted; however, overall, there was a general dissatisfaction. Whilst a strong interest in the use of NMES for dysarthria was evidenced, it was noted that most SLTs lacked fundamental knowledge of NMES principles and application. Conclusion: SLTs' management practices and satisfaction with acquired dysarthria treatments differed substantially. Investigations of the potential use of NMES for dysarthria treatment are of interest. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Recent country‐specific surveys have explored speech‐language therapists' (SLTs') assessment and intervention practices for acquired dysarthria. These studies indicate that although clinical management for this speech disorder mainly involves informal assessment tools and impairment‐focused treatment, communication beyond the impairment, such as the activity and participation domains, is also frequently assessed and treated. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The majority of SLTs are dissatisfied with the overall benefits of current acquired dysarthria treatment. Phonatory, respiration and speech rate therapies are perceived to be more effective than prosody, articulation and resonance treatments. Despite a general lack of theoretical knowledge, most SLTs are interested in neuromuscular electrical stimulation treatment for acquired dysarthria. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: New, evidence‐based treatments are needed for SLTs to be confident in the effectiveness of their acquired dysarthria treatment. [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: While the relationship between speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) and mental health difficulties has been recognized, speech and language therapists (SLTs), and mental health professionals face challenges in assessing and treating children with these co‐occurring needs. There exists a gap in the evidence base for best practice for professionals working with children and young people (CYP) who experience difficulties in both areas. Aims: To explore the views of SLTs and mental health clinicians about their experiences of working with CYP exhibiting co‐occurring SLCN and mental health difficulties. Methods & Procedures: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with eight SLTs and six mental health professionals, including psychotherapists, clinical psychologists, play therapists and counsellors, with experience working with CYP with SLCN. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and themes were identified from the data. Outcomes & Results: Participants felt that SLCN and mental health difficulties frequently co‐occur. Participants described how CYP with SLCN and mental health issues commonly experience difficulties across and between the domains of language and cognition, emotional well‐being and challenging behaviour. Findings suggest that there are organizational limitations in the fields of SLT and mental health that have implications for the efficacy of assessment and treatment of CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Traditional talking therapies were perceived to be inaccessible and ineffective for CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Interventions blending behaviour and emotion programmes with language and communication interventions were considered potentially beneficial. Conclusions & Implications: Future research should explore and evaluate current services and service set‐up in SLT and mental health. The findings from this study have important implications for the efficacy of treatments provided to this population suggesting that more research needs to be done into effective diagnosis and interventions for this population. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Research suggests that CYP with SLCN, such as developmental language disorder (DLD), are likely to experience mental health difficulties including depression, anxiety and poor emotional well‐being. CYP who experience difficulties with SLCN and poor mental health are not well understood and this area remains under‐researched. This has implications for clinician knowledge and therefore the effective diagnosis and treatment of children and adolescents experiencing SLCN and mental health difficulties. In addition, little is known about the accessibility of talking therapies to CYP presenting with SLCN and mental health difficulties. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: SLCN issues are understood by SLTs and mental health issues are understood by mental health professionals, but where these co‐occur difficulties exist for the diagnostic process, with professionals perceiving that CYP in this category are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Organizational boundaries between SLT and mental health were perceived to contribute to a lack of understanding of SLCN and mental health needs, which has implications for effective diagnosis and treatment. Traditional talking therapies were thought to be inaccessible for CYP with SLCN and mental health difficulties. Interventions used in both SLT and psychotherapy were perceived as clinically useful if combined. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This paper highlights implications for the accessibility and efficacy of the assessment and treatment provided to this population and to the organization of services currently treating this group of CYP. A direction for future research would be to undertake service evaluations and intervention‐based studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: 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: Person‐centred services are inherently related to patients/caregivers' needs. However, the extent to which dysphagia services within Singapore meet consumer needs is largely unknown. Involving patients/caregivers in service evaluation/redesign deepens the understanding of consumer needs. This process also increases the success of implementing service enhancements through relevant and meaningful change. Aim: This study aimed to identify aspects of dysphagia services, within acute and subacute settings in Singapore, perceived as highly important and easy to change by patients/caregivers. Methods & Procedures: Using concept mapping methodology, 5 patients and 11 caregivers reflected on their experiences of receiving dysphagia care and proposed 59 unique suggestions to improve dysphagia services within Singapore. Then, each individual sorted the suggestions into groups based on similarity and rated each statement for its perceived importance and changeability for service enhancement. Data were analysed using multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and bivariate analysis to generate clusters of conceptually similar suggestions and a prioritised list of suggestions for service enhancement. Results: Twelve clusters were identified, with most rated as more important than changeable for service improvement. Participants prioritised 23 (39%) of the suggestions as highly important and easy to change, and these focused on ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. Conclusion: These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients/caregivers. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Little is known about patients and caregivers' experiences and expectations of receiving dysphagia services in Singapore. Consulting them in service review and improvement deepens understanding of their needs and increases the success of implementing meaningful service enhancements. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study shows that patients and caregivers in Singapore identified a wide range of dysphagia service issues and prioritised a list of suggestions for service improvement. They prioritised four key areas for service optimisation: ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. What are the clinical implications of this work?: This research highlights the importance of considering the consumers' perspectives in service review and redesign. Patients and caregivers in Singapore identified four prioritised areas for service enhancements. These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients and caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest swallow intervention programmes that incorporate visual biofeedback and motor programming principles can improve swallowing and quality of life for people with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) and dysphagia. Few studies have examined outcomes using instrumentation. Aims: Using fibreoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing (FEES), this study examines the effectiveness of a neurorehabilitation intervention involving biofeedback via surface electromyography (sEMG) to improve swallowing in people with IPD, and to explore the feasibility of the intervention approach. Methods & Procedures: We recruited 12 participants with IPD and dysphagia. A total of 10 completed the study. Intervention was delivered for 1 h per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks (20 h). Swallowing tasks using sEMG biofeedback incorporated principles of motor learning and neuroplasticity. Instrumental and non‐instrumental assessment, including quality‐of‐life measures carried out at four different time points (two pre‐treatment and two post‐treatment). The final assessment was at 3 months post‐intervention. Outcome & Results: Statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05) in oral intake methods (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.70–5.50) and in pharyngeal residue from saliva (95% CI = 2.14–3.15) and solids (95% CI = 2.4–3.5) post‐intervention were confirmed using FEES with improvements at 3 months. The intervention protocol was well tolerated. Participants reported positive change in saliva control and duration of mealtimes as well as unanticipated improvements in voice and cognitive attention. Conclusions & Implications: An intensive neurorehabilitation with biofeedback shows positive effects in improving swallow function in IPD. This protocol is feasible with amendments to inform a larger clinical trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Biofeedback has positive effects on increasing swallowing function and quality of life in people with IPD and dysphagia. sEMG is the most common method used to deliver swallowing biofeedback in this population. The quality of the evidence on the intervention, based on findings from a recent systematic review, is low. Included studies in this review were heterogeneous in terms of type and frequency of biofeedback, study design and outcome measures. The majority of outcome measures were subjective and higher quality studies to examine the efficacy of biofeedback using sEMG are needed. What this study adds: Recognizing the limitations of earlier studies, this within‐subject feasibility study examined the efficacy and effectiveness of an intensive biofeedback intervention using sEMG in a sample of people with dysphagia and IPD. Valid and reliable outcome measures were used and repeated after a 3‐month period. The feasibility of the methodological approach was also tested and a qualitative component was included in the study. Positive findings were evident. Qualitative information added new perspectives and provided direction for new outcomes to be included in future studies. This study helps to inform further research trials as well as clinical practice. Clinical implications of this study: This intensive intervention using principles of neuroplasticity and motor programming with sEMG biofeedback led not only to positive swallowing outcomes but also to unexpected benefits such as improved voice production and general attention skills. No adverse events were reported. Improvement in function was retained at 3 months post‐intervention. Despite the small sample size, participants described the benefits of the treatment, and enjoyed sEMG biofeedback tasks, especially using an sEMG game mode. This suggests that intensive biofeedback not only improved swallowing but also was acceptable to these participants. This intensive protocol has merit and is worth considering further in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. Speech–language pathologists (SLPs) might have negative perceptions of the treatment of children with a CP±L. Aims: To explore how community SLPs perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 62 years, were included in this study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach aiming to identify themes driven by the data. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by including researcher triangulation (involving three researchers with different research backgrounds) and deviant case analysis of two cases. Outcomes & Results: Initial responses demonstrated that the community SLPs were excited and enthusiastic to treat children with a CP±L. Expanding on these initial reports, however, they revealed that their excitement turned into professional self‐doubt and insecurity when confronted with the treatment challenges inherent with this population. To cope with this self‐doubt, they outlined several responsibilities for the cleft team SLPs. They expressed a strong desire to receive confirmation and approval on their treatment practices from more experienced SLPs (i.e., the cleft team SLPs). Their perceptions were dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches were divided in categories as 'right' or 'wrong' and 'good' or 'bad'. Conclusions & Implications: The community SLPs are lacking professional confidence when treating children with a CP±L. They put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. This expectation can perhaps be explained by their fear of making mistakes during therapy preventing treatment progress. If they handle in accordance with the experts' advice, they cannot blame themselves in cases where no treatment progress is seen. Educational programmes need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence (in the search for the most optimal treatment approach for each individual patient) rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study explored how community SLPs' perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. The perceptions of community SLPs are dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches are divided into categories as "right" or "wrong" and "good" or "bad". They lack professional confidence when they treat children with a CP±L. The community SLPs put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Educational programs in speech‐language pathology need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. [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: 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: The lack of high‐quality evidence to support specific treatment approaches has been widely documented in the existing literature, with evidence suggesting speech and language therapists (SLTs) frequently rely on experience and expert opinion to inform treatment. One approach that is commonly used within dysphagia management, in spite of a lack of existing evidence to support its efficacy, is the use of oral trials, otherwise known as swallow trials or tasters. This approach involves offering specified, limited amounts of oral diet or fluids for those at risk of aspiration or choking if full amounts are taken orally and may be recommended for rehabilitation or quality of life. Methods & Procedures: A total of nine SLTs working in one acute hospital volunteered to participate in focus groups in order to discuss their experience and clinical reasoning for using oral trials within one inpatient hospital setting in the UK. The objectives of this study were (1) to explore how oral trials are used within one inpatient hospital; (2) to consider the barriers and facilitators to the approach; and (3) to consider why this approach may be favoured over other evidenced dysphagia therapies. A grounded theory approach was used to guide data analysis, using two independent coders to identify themes within the focus groups. Outcomes & Results: Analysis of data revealed the following themes: (1) delivering oral trials requires 'a whole team approach'; (2) SLTs vary recommendations based on patient and environmental factors; and (3) oral trials as a holistic approach. Conclusions & Implications: The use of oral trials was considered by SLTs to be a holistic and flexible approach which can be adapted to a range of patient and environmental factors. Although clinical experience guided rationale, an understanding of the principles of neuroplasticity and swallow physiology was also integral to the approach. Further research is warranted to investigate the use and efficacy of oral trials across the SLT community and within specific patient groups and different environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the UK, there is increasing pressure on ear, nose and throat (ENT) clinicians and departments, which is anticipated to amplify in the coming months and years due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and other workforce pressures. In the context of a national drive to advance practice of Allied Health Professionals to address some key challenges facing the National Health Service, we explored whether UK speech and language therapists (SLTs) felt it is possible to utilize and extend their existing skills to patients on the urgent 2-week wait (2ww) ENT pathway. Aims: To explore SLTs' views of extending their role to work with patients referred on the ENT 2ww pathway. Methods&Procedures: Two separate focus groupswere conducted using nominal group technique to generate and rank benefits and challenges of the proposed extension of role. Participants were invited to take part through Clinical Excellence Networks relevant to head and neck cancer and voice sub-specialties. Participants were competent in performing nasendscopy in at least a highly specialist role in voice or head and neck subspecialties. Outcomes & Results: Nine SLTs from England, Wales and Northern Ireland attended two focus groups. All were employed in band 8 roles in head and neck and/or voice. Eight were competent to Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists' scoping level 3. Important benefits of the proposed novel service delivery model were generated and ranked by participants, with both groups identifying improved quality and efficiency of service for patients among the most important. Disadvantages were then generated and ranked across the two groups with potential for misdiagnosis ranked as the most important by both. Conclusions & Implications: Participants responded that extending the SLT role into assessment of 2ww patients would provide benefits for quality of care, healthcare efficiency and the SLT workforce. The identified disadvantages require addressing if the proposed SLT-led model of service delivery is piloted in the UK. These include practical matters such as referral and prescribing rights, alongside wider implications such as support, governance, indemnity, acknowledgement and remuneration for the extended role. Nationally agreed competencies and training for the role are required if this model is to be successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) working with dysphagia have had to radically alter diagnostic and rehabilitation services during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, hereafter referred to as coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Given the aerosol-generating procedures inherent in swallow assessment and interventions, these SLTs have also been particularly susceptible to virus exposure. Aims: To investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19 on SLTs working with adult dysphagia across the Republic of Ireland and to identify the personal and professional factors associated with depression, anxiety, stress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To explore SLT perspectives regarding their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods&Procedures: A cross-sectional 34-itemonline surveywas developed and piloted. The survey collected demographic details and professional factors and it incorporated the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale--21 (DASS-21) and the Impact of Event Scale--Revised (IES-R). The survey also sought SLT perspectives regarding their experiences during the pandemic. It was distributed to Irish SLTmanagers, the Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists (IASLT) and the Irish Dysphagia Special Interest Group (SIG) for dissemination. Outcomes & Results: A total of 94 SLTs working with adults with dysphagia across Ireland responded. In total, 60% of respondents screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress and/or PTSD. Based on the DASS-21, 38% screened positive for depression (mean score = 8.0; SD = 6.3), 36% screened positive for anxiety (mean score = 6.5; SD = 6.0), and 49% screened positive for stress (mean score = 15.4; SD = 6.9). A total of 26% of respondents screened positive for PTSD (mean IES-R total score = 22.6; SD = 16.0). Factors associated with depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD were young age (p = 0.002), limited clinical experience (p=0.01) and not livingwith children (p=0.02). Athematic analysis of SLT perspectives identified four main themes: 'fear of COVID-19 infection and transmission', 'uncertainty regarding policies and procedures', 'changes in SLT roles and responsibilities' and 'increased workload'. Conclusions & Implications: This study highlights the psychological impact of COVID-19 on SLTs working with adults with dysphagia in Ireland and identifies SLTs who are at risk of depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings may assist employers to identify staff who require psychological support and long-term follow-up during this pandemic and any future health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]