Search

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: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, Ireland implemented a series of stringent public health measures, including lockdowns and suspension of non‐urgent clinical services. Aims: To investigate the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the demand for and delivery of speech and language therapy (SLT) services in Ireland in 2020. Methods & Procedures: Two iterations of a cross‐sectional, mixed‐methods online survey were distributed to speech and language therapists (SLTs) and SLT students in Ireland in the spring and autumn of 2020 using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The spring survey yielded 407 responses (including 14 from SLT students), while 197 respondents took part in the autumn (13 students). Survey analysis focused on questions related to the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on delivery and demand for SLT services (student responses were excluded from analysis owing to low response rate). The largest group in respect of experience were senior SLTs (58% in both surveys). The work settings most strongly represented were HSE primary care (34.4%) and disability services (26.5%) in the spring, and HSE primary care (39.1%), acute hospitals (22.8%) and disability services (20.8%) in the autumn. We used descriptive statistics, including distribution analysis, to analyse the quantitative data. Free text data were interrogated through a variant of a conventional qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results: In the spring, cessation of face‐to‐face services featured prominently (reported by 65.6% versus 14.2% in the autumn), across SLTs' work settings, except acute hospitals. Lower demand was reported by 42.5% in the spring, while in the autumn, 48.7% indicated that demand was higher. SLTs experienced large‐scale redeployment (spring: 45.9%, autumn: 38.4%), with HSE primary care SLTs redeployed most (spring: 71.7%; autumn: 62.3%). The need to suddenly pivot to telehealth was a significant challenge in terms of training, technology and logistics. New ways of working emerged and gradually, telehealth became more embedded. SLTs also had to adapt to working with evolving public health measures, such as space restrictions and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements. Across the two survey iterations, SLTs reported tensions between demands and capacity: while referrals and demand initially decreased in the spring, this led to increased backlog and longer waiting lists, ongoing and increasing pressure on clinicians and services, and negatively impacted clients and families. Conclusions & Implications: The COVID‐19 pandemic had a significant negative impact on SLT services in Ireland. Going forward, the SLT profession and its services will require sustained support to mitigate long‐term negative consequences, such as increased waiting lists. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: The negative impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on SLT services has been examined in several countries. Ireland imposed more stringent pandemic‐management measures than many other countries, and it was therefore warranted to investigate how SLT services in the country were affected. What this study adds to the existing knowledge: Face‐to‐face SLT services effectively ceased in most non‐urgent contexts in spring 2020. This coincided with large‐scale redeployment of SLTs to non‐SLT contexts. By autumn 2020, demand had increased again, but not all services had recommenced, and redeployment was still a factor. Although SLTs adapted to the ongoing changes imposed by the pandemic, they voiced concern about increasing backlogs and longer waiting lists, ongoing and increasing pressure on both SLTs and services, and negative impacts on clients and families. What are the actual and clinical implications of this work?: The COVID‐19 pandemic had a significant negative impact on SLT services in Ireland. Going forward, the SLT profession and its services will require sustained support to mitigate long‐term negative consequences, such as increased waiting lists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]