Search

Background: Spoken discourse impairments post‐traumatic brain injury (TBI) are well‐documented and heterogeneous in nature. These impairments have chronic implications for adults in terms of employment, socializing and community involvement. Intervention delivered by a speech–language pathologist (SLP) is recommended for adults with discourse impairments post‐TBI, with an emphasis on context‐sensitive treatment. The developing evidence base indicates a wide array of treatment components for SLPs to evaluate and implement within their clinical practice. However, there is limited insight into how SLPs are currently treating discourse impairments and the rationales informing clinical practice. Aims: To explore the under‐researched area of clinical practice for spoken discourse interventions with adults post‐TBI, including treatment components and clinician rationales, and to contribute towards a shared knowledge base. Methods & Procedures: Participants were recruited via purposeful sampling strategies. Six SLPs participated from Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted via Zoom. Interviews were manually transcribed, coded and analysed via a qualitative content analysis approach. Outcomes & Results: :Participants described discourse treatment practices across various settings and TBI recovery stages. Results indicated that SLPs used numerous treatment activities, resources and outcome measures. Intervention approaches primarily targeted social communication skills, strategy development/utilization and insight‐building. Clinical practice conformed to available guidelines where possible, reflected best practice and incorporated components of the research literature. Participants reported using individualized treatment activities aimed at addressing client‐specific factors and rationales prioritized tailored, context‐sensitive and goal‐directed treatment. Conclusions & Implications: This study provided insight into a previously under‐researched area. It highlighted a wide range of treatment activities and factors informing current SLPs' treatment of spoken discourse impairment post‐TBI. Overall, clinical practice and rationales discussed in this study were aligned with best practice and emphasized a contextualized, individualized approach to discourse treatment across service settings and stages of recovery. Participants identified areas requiring further support, including access to training, resources and research, and the challenge of finding suitable outcome measures. Further investigation into discourse management post‐TBI, from initial assessment to outcome measurement, may help inform clinical decision‐making and the transfer of research to practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Spoken discourse impairments occur in dialogic and monologic productions post‐TBI. Interventions targeting both genres are detailed within the research literature; however, studies exploring clinical practice and decision‐making for discourse interventions post‐TBI are limited. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study provides new insight into the current treatment targets, activities, resources and outcome measures employed by clinicians supporting adults with discourse impairment post‐TBI. It details the factors that influence clinical decision‐making for this caseload and identifies an emphasis on client priorities and the value of clinician experience. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study identifies the broad and complex considerations required to deliver context‐sensitive discourse intervention post‐TBI. It indicates the need for an in‐depth review from assessment to treatment outcomes to better understand and support this area of practice and to direct future research. This study also highlighted the role of clinician experience in discourse intervention and the value of sharing clinical knowledge and resources within and across the profession to support all levels of clinician experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with an acquired brain injury (ABI) find it challenging to use social media due to changes in their cognition and communication skills. Using social media can provide opportunities for positive connection, but there is a lack of interventions specifically designed to support safe and successful social media use after ABI. Aims: To investigate the outcomes of completing a social media skills intervention and identify barriers and facilitators for future implementation. Methods & Procedures: The study used a mixed‐methods, pre‐post‐intervention design. A total of 17 adults with an ABI were recruited. Participants completed an intervention that included a short self‐guided course about social media skills (social‐ABI‐lity course), and then participated in a private, moderated Facebook group over a 12‐week period (social‐ABI‐lity Facebook group). Data were collected over this period through observation of group activity and weekly surveys. They were also collected on social media use and quality of life at pre‐intervention, post‐intervention and after 3 months. Participants provided feedback on the experience of participating in the programme via a post‐intervention interview. Outcomes & Results: At post‐intervention, there were significant improvements in confidence in using Facebook (p = 0.002) and enjoyment of using Facebook to connect with others (p = 0.013). There was no significant change in reported quality of life, although participants described the multiple benefits of connection they perceived from involvement in the group. Observational data and feedback interviews were informative about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: This pilot study provided preliminary evidence that an intervention comprising a short, self‐guided training course and a private, moderated Facebook group improved outcomes for people with ABI. Key recommendations for future implementation include embedding active peer moderators within groups and taking an individualized approach to delivery of the intervention. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Research has documented the challenges that people with ABI experience in using social media, and the difficulty for rehabilitation clinicians in providing appropriate support in this field. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This pilot study reports the outcomes of people with ABI completing a short, self‐guided social media skills course and participating in a private, moderated Facebook group. After the intervention, participants reported significantly increased confidence and enjoyment in using Facebook, described the benefits of connection found in the groups, and suggested potential improvements for future implementation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: With the growing use of social media for connection and participation, there is a professional obligation to address social media communication skills in cognitive–communication rehabilitation for people with ABI. The findings of this study will inform interventions and future research to assist people with ABI to build their social media skills for communication, social support and a sense of connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) use videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) results to manage dysphagia. Yet, in some services only doctors can directly request a VFSS, potentially creating workflow inefficiencies and delaying patient access to VFSS. An alternative model, where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS, is used in many services in the UK and Australia. However, processes for implementing and sustaining this model have not been reported. Aims: To evaluate the implementation of an SLT‐led inpatient VFSS referring model using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ascertain implementation barriers, facilitators and critical sustainability factors. Methods & Procedures: This implementation evaluation examined stakeholder perceptions of implementing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model via interviews of (1) SLTs who treat and refer inpatients for VFSS; (2) doctors who manage and refer inpatients for VFSS; (3) radiologists; and (4) trained VFSS referring SLTs. The CFIR was used to prospectively guide implementation planning, evaluation and outcome reporting, regarding barriers, facilitators and sustainability factors. Outcomes & Results: Implementation facilitators were (1) the advantage of SLT‐led VFSS referring over the standard model (doctors referring), in promoting high‐quality VFSS referrals; (2) compatibility of the model with the SLT skill set; (3) supportive communication networks between staff groups; and (4) engaging stakeholders throughout implementation. Adequate availability of trained VFSS referring SLTs was both a barrier and a facilitator of implementation. It was also a critical sustainability factor, along with ongoing staff education and outcome monitoring. Conclusions & Implications: The CFIR supported systematic evaluation of implementation facilitators and barriers, and adjustment of factors critical for implementing and sustaining the new model. Findings may assist other organizations to establish the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Models where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS have been described in the literature, with evidence of appropriate referrals and adherence to radiation safety standards. However, the process for establishing and sustaining this referring model has not been published. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes the process and outcomes of implementing an SLT‐led VFSS referring model, using the CFIR. A key advantage of the new model that facilitated implementation was the improved quality of VFSS referrals compared with the standard referring model. Important facilitating factors in the environment were the compatibility of the model with SLTs' skillset and supportive communication network between doctors and SLTs. Initially, an implementation barrier was the inadequate availability of trained SLT referrers. Using proactive implementation strategies, more referrers were trained (which was a facilitating factor for implementing and sustaining the model). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights that successful implementation requires more than just an effective model. Features of the environment require consideration to minimize barriers and optimize facilitating factors, supported by proactive implementation strategies. Planning and evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using a standardized implementation framework such as CFIR aided understanding of barriers and facilitators for introducing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. This process may assist other services to implement the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whilst research into the wide‐ranging needs of family members following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is well established, investigation into the specific needs of families in relation to supporting cognitive–communication difficulties, relationships and social participation is limited. Aims: To identify the family needs for cognitive‐communication difficulties following TBI and to explore whether current services are meeting these needs. Methods & Procedures: Following a successful pilot, family members from the UK and Australia were invited via posters, social media and e‐mail to take part in an anonymous, communication needs survey. Data arising from the thirty two closed questions (six eligibility, nine demographic and seventeen needs questions) were analysed using SPSS descriptive statistics. Data arising from one open question were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 102 family members from the UK (n = 89, 87%) and Australia (n = 13, 13%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were female (n = 76; 75%), between the ages of 30 and 69 (n = 88; 87%), and either a parent or a partner of the person following TBI (n = 78;76%). Respondents rated information about expected recovery from cognitive‐communication difficulties and training in helpful strategies as their most important needs. The majority of respondents (more than 60%) were not satisfied that any of their cognitive–communication needs had been fully met and high levels of unmet need remained evident at three years or more post‐injury. Written information, communication partner training and counselling were identified as key supports. Conclusions & Implications: Families report high levels of unmet need for managing cognitive‐communication difficulties following TBI. Access to written information and communication partner training should be available to families at various time points following TBI and not just in the early stages. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectAttempting to support a person who has cognitive‐communication difficulties following TBI has been found to be highly burdensome for family members. However, few studies have asked how families perceive their needs in relation to cognitive‐communication difficulties or measured how well current services are meeting their needs.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study demonstrates that current speech and language therapy services are not yet meeting the needs of the relatives of individuals with cognitive‐communication difficulties following TBI. Important insights into the information, training and support families' rate as important are identified in addition to how these needs develop over time.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Speech and language therapy service design requires to reflect the ongoing nature of familial needs for cognitive‐communication difficulties following TBI. Families require access to appropriate literature, speech and language therapy support, and communication partner training in the longer term, not just in the acute phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication partners (CPs) find it challenging to communicate with people with communication disorders post‐stroke. Stroke communication partner training (CPT) can enhance CPs' ability to support the communication and participation of people post‐stroke. While evidence for the efficacy of aphasia‐based CPT is strong, implementation in healthcare settings is unclear. Aims: To investigate Australian speech pathologists' current stroke CPT practices, factors influencing the implementation of CPT and how reported practice compares with the research evidence. Methods & Procedures: Speech pathologists in Australia who had worked with people post‐stroke were invited to complete a 99‐item online survey. The survey was informed by a comprehensive review of the literature review, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) intervention taxonomy, and the theoretical domains framework. data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 122 clinicians were surveyed. Most participants reported providing CPT to treat a range of post‐stroke communication disorders. While 98.3% reported training familiar CPs, only 66.1% reported training unfamiliar CPs. Current stroke CPT practice is characterized by one to two < 1 h sessions of informal face‐to‐face education and skills training. Only 13.3% and 10.0% of participants used evidence‐based published programmes with unfamiliar and familiar CPs respectively. The main barriers included the perceived lack of behavioural regulation, skills, reinforcement, beliefs about consequences, positive social influences and resources. The main facilitators included clinicians' intentions to provide CPT, perception of CPT as part of their role and perceived compatibility of CPT with clinical practice. Conclusion & Implications: A significant evidence–practice gap exists. Research exploring the implementation of stroke CPT in healthcare settings, expanding evidence to support CPT for the range of post‐stroke communication disorders, developing freely accessible step‐by‐step CPT programmes that consider restrictions in current practice and providing explicit instructions of CPT best practice are warranted. A supportive workplace culture and freely accessible formal training opportunities are also needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aphasia affects family members in addition to the individuals with the communication disorder. In order to develop appropriate services for the relatives of people with aphasia post-stroke, their rehabilitation goals need to be identified. Aim: The aim of the current investigation was to identify the rehabilitation goals that family members of individuals with aphasia have for themselves. Methods & Procedures: Forty-eight family members of adults with aphasia post-stroke participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews to identify the rehabilitation goals they had for themselves. All the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Analysis revealed seven categories of goals that the family members had for themselves: to be included in rehabilitation, to be provided with hope and positivity, to be able to communicate and maintain their relationship with the person with aphasia, to be given information, to be given support, to look after their own well-being, and to be able to cope with new responsibilities. A few participants reported that, at certain times during the rehabilitation process, they did not have any goals for themselves. Conclusions & Implications: This study highlights that family members of individuals with aphasia have a number of aphasia-related rehabilitation goals for themselves. In order to provide a family-centred approach to rehabilitation, health professionals, including speech-language pathologists, need systematically to identify and address family members' goals in light of the categories revealed in this investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]