Search

Background: Competent clinical reasoning forms the foundation for effective and efficient clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and consequent dysphagia management decisions. While the nature of initial CSEs has been evaluated, it remains unclear how new information gathered by speech–language therapists (SLTs) throughout a patient's acute‐care journey is integrated into their initial clinical reasoning and management processes and used to review and revise initial management recommendations. Aims: To understand how SLTs' clinical reasoning and decision‐making regarding dysphagia assessment and management evolve as patients transition through acute hospital care from referral to discharge. Methods & Procedures: A longitudinal, qualitative approach was employed to gather information from two SLTs who managed six patients at a metropolitan acute‐care hospital. A retrospective 'think‐aloud' protocol was utilized to prompt SLTs regarding their clinical reasoning and decision‐making processes during initial and subsequent CSEs and patient interactions. Three types of concept maps were created based on these interviews: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. All concept maps were evaluated regarding their overall structure, facts gathered, types of reasoning engaged in (inductive versus deductive), types of hypotheses generated, and the diagnosis and management recommendations made following initial CSE and during subsequent dysphagia management. Outcomes & Results: Initial CSEs involved a rich process of fact‐gathering, that was predominantly led by inductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) and some application of deductive reasoning (hypothesis testing), with the primary aims of determining the presence of dysphagia and identifying the safest diet and fluid recommendations. During follow‐up assessments, SLTs engaged in increasingly more deductive testing of initial hypotheses, including fact‐gathering aimed at determining the tolerance of current diet and fluid recommendations or the suitability for diet and/or fluid upgrade and less inductive reasoning. Consistent with this aim, SLTs' hypotheses were focused primarily on airway protection and medical status during the follow‐up phase. Overall, both initial and follow‐up swallowing assessments were targeted primarily at identifying suitable management recommendations, and less so on identifying and formulating diagnoses. None of the patients presented with adverse respiratory and/or swallowing outcomes during admission and following discharge from speech pathology. Conclusions & Implications: Swallowing assessment and management across the acute‐care journey was observed as a high‐quality, patient‐centred process characterized by iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning. This approach appears to maximize efficiency without compromising the quality of care. The outcomes of this research encourage further investigation and translation to tertiary and post‐professional education contexts as a clear understanding of the processes involved in reaching diagnoses and management recommendations can inform career‐long refinement of clinical skills. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: SLTs' clinical reasoning processes during initial CSE employ iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning, reflecting a patient‐centred assessment process. To date it is unknown how SLTs engage in clinical reasoning during follow‐up assessments of swallowing function, how they assess the appropriateness of initial management recommendations and how this relates to patient outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: Our longitudinal evaluation of clinical reasoning and decision‐making patterns related to swallowing management in acute care demonstrated that SLTs tailored their processes to each patient's presentation. There was an emphasis on monitoring the suitability of the initial management recommendations and the potential for upgrade of diet or compensatory swallowing strategies. The iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning reflect efficient decision‐making processes that maintain high‐quality clinical care within the acute environment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Employing efficient and high‐quality clinical reasoning is a hallmark of good dysphagia practice in maximizing positive patient outcomes. Developing approaches to understanding and making explicit clinical reasoning processes of experienced clinicians may assist SLTs of all developmental stages to provide high standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Speech Language Therapy First Point of Contact Clinic (SLT‐FPOCC) models can assist assessment of low‐risk patient populations referred to ear, nose and throat (ENT) services. To further improve ENT waitlist management and compliance with best‐practice care, consideration of other low‐risk populations that could be safely managed through this service model is needed. The aims of this paper are to evaluate the clinical and service outcomes of completing vocal cord check (VCC) assessments for patients' pre and post thyroid/parathyroid surgery within an SLT‐FPOCC model and examine consumer perceptions. Methods & Procedures: The service followed existing SLT‐FPOCC procedures, with ENT triaging referrals, then SLT completing pre‐ and postoperative VCC assessment (interview, perceptual assessment, flexible nasendoscopy), with assessment data later reviewed by ENT to diagnose laryngeal pathology. Clinical and service outcomes were collected prospectively. Patients completed an anonymous post‐service satisfaction survey. Results: Of the first 100 patients referred for preoperative VCCs, SLT assessment identified 42 with dysphonia and 30 reporting dysphagia, while ENT confirmed 9 with significant preoperative anatomical findings. Eighty‐three underwent surgery, with 63 (95 nerves at surgical risk) returning for a postoperative VCC. Postoperative VCC identified three temporary neuropraxias (3.2%) and three unilateral vocal fold paresis (3.2%). Patients were highly satisfied with the service. All 163 pre‐/postoperative VCCs were completed with no adverse events. Conclusion & Implications: The current data support SLT‐FPOCC service expansion to include pre and post thyroid/parathyroid surgery VCC checks, with positive consumer perception. The model supports delivery of best practice management (i.e., pre‐ and postoperative VCC) for patients receiving surgery for thyroid/parathyroid dysfunction, and associated efficiencies for ENT services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known: Assessment of laryngeal function via flexible nasoendoscopy is recommended best practice for patients pre and postthyroid/parathyroid surgery, as recurrent laryngeal nerve injury is a low incidence (<10%), yet well‐recognised risk of these surgeries. Traditionally, general surgeons refer presurgical patients to ear, nose and throat (ENT) for vocal cord check (VCC) assessment. However, with access to specialist outpatient services under increasing pressure, there is growing support for utilisation of other health professionals, such as speech‐language therapists working in first point of contact (FPOCC) models, to assist with the administration of pre‐ and postsurgical assessments of such low‐risk populations. What this study adds: This work expands on the emerging body of evidence for speech language therapy (SLT) led FPOCC models within ENT outpatient services, providing clinical and service outcomes to support the safety of a new model designed to administer VCCs for patients pre and post thyroid/parathyroid surgery. Adopting a similar model to a prior published SLT‐led FPOCC model, the trained SLT completes the pre‐ and postsurgical VCC including flexible nasoendoscopy and videostroboscopy, with images and clinical information then presented to ENT for diagnosis and management planning. This study also provides the first data on consumer perceptions of this type of service model. Clinical implications of this study: Data on 100 consecutive presurgical patients revealed positive service findings, supporting the safety of this model. Nature and incidence of clinical findings pre and post surgery were consistent with previously published studies using traditional models of care (i.e., ENT completing the flexible nasendoscopy). Consumer perception was positive. This model enables delivery of pre‐and postsurgical assessments for patients receiving thyroid/parathyroid surgery, consistent with best practice care, and reduces burden on ENT services. In total 163 ENT appointments were avoided with this model, with positive implications for ENT waitlist management. [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]