Search

Background: Following content analyses of the first 30 years of the UK speech and language therapy professional body's journal, this study was conducted to survey the published work of the speech (and language) therapy profession over the last 50 years and trace key changes and themes. Aim: To understand better the development of the UK speech and language therapy profession over the last 50 years. Methods & Procedures: All volumes of the professional journal of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists published between 1966 and 2015 ("British Journal of Communication Disorders," "European Journal of Communication Disorders" and "International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders") were examined using content analysis. The content was compared with that of the same journal as it appeared from 1935 to 1965. Outcomes & Results: The journal has shown a trend towards more multi-authored and international papers, and a formalization of research methodologies. The volume of papers has increased considerably. Topic areas have expanded, but retain many of the areas of study found in earlier issues of the journal. Conclusions & Implications: The journal and its articles reflect the growing complexity of conditions being researched by speech and language therapists and their professional colleagues and give an indication of the developing evidence base for intervention and the diverse routes which speech and language therapy practice has taken over the last 50 years.

Background: Following a content analysis of the first 10 years of the UK professional journal "Speech," this study was conducted to survey the published work of the speech (and language) therapy profession in the 20 years following the unification of two separate professional bodies into the College of Speech Therapists. Aim: To understand better the development of the speech (and language) therapy profession in the UK in order to support the development of an online history of the speech and language therapy profession in the UK. Methods & Procedures: The 40 issues of the professional journal of the College of Speech Therapists published between 1946 and 1965 ("Speech" and later "Speech Pathology and Therapy") were examined using content analysis and the content compared with that of the same journal as it appeared from 1935 to the end of the Second World War (1945). Outcomes & Results: Many aspects of the journal and its authored papers were retained from the earlier years, for example, the range of authors' professions, their location mainly in the UK, their number of contributions and the length of papers. Changes and developments included the balance of original to republished papers, the description and discussion of new professional issues, and an extended range of client groups/disorders. Conclusions & Implications: The journal and its articles reflect the growing maturity of the newly unified profession of speech therapy and give an indication both of the expanding depth of knowledge available to speech therapists and of the rapidly increasing breadth of their work over this period.

Background Following content analyses of the first 30 years of the UK speech and language therapy professional body's journal, this study was conducted to survey the published work of the speech (and language) therapy profession over the last 50 years and trace key changes and themes. Aim To understand better the development of the UK speech and language therapy profession over the last 50 years. Methods & Procedures All volumes of the professional journal of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists published between 1966 and 2015 ( British Journal of Communication Disorders, European Journal of Communication Disorders and International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders) were examined using content analysis. The content was compared with that of the same journal as it appeared from 1935 to 1965. Outcomes & Results The journal has shown a trend towards more multi-authored and international papers, and a formalization of research methodologies. The volume of papers has increased considerably. Topic areas have expanded, but retain many of the areas of study found in earlier issues of the journal. Conclusions & Implications The journal and its articles reflect the growing complexity of conditions being researched by speech and language therapists and their professional colleagues and give an indication of the developing evidence base for intervention and the diverse routes which speech and language therapy practice has taken over the last 50 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2016/17, the CATALISE Consortium published the results of a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study, representing agreement among professionals about the definition and process of identification of children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) (Bishop et al., 2016, 2017). The extent to which the current clinical practice of UK speech and language therapists (SLTs) reflects the CATALISE consensus statements is unknown. Aims: To investigate how UK SLTs' expressive language assessment practices reflect the CATALISE documents' emphasis on the functional impairment and impact caused by DLD, by examining: whether multiple sources of assessment information are gathered; how standardised and non‐standardised sources are combined in clinical decision‐making, and how clinical observation and language sample analysis are utilised. Methods and Procedures: An anonymous, online survey was carried out between August 2019 and January 2020. It was open to UK‐based paediatric SLTs who assess children up to age 12 with unexplained difficulties using language. Questions probed different aspects of expressive language assessment which are referred to in the CATALISE consensus statements and supplementary comments, and asked about participants' familiarity with the CATALISE statements. Responses were analysed using simple descriptive statistics and content analysis. Outcomes and Results: The questionnaire was completed by 104 participants, from all four regions of the United Kingdom, working in a range of clinical settings with different levels of professional experience of DLD. The findings indicate that clinical assessment practices broadly align with the CATALISE statements. Although clinicians carry out standardised assessments more frequently than other types of assessment, they also gather information from other sources and use this alongside standardised test scores to inform clinical decisions. Clinical observation and language sample analysis are commonly utilised to evaluate functional impairment and impact, along with parent/carer/teacher and child report. However, asking about the child's own perspective could be more widely utilised. The findings also highlight a lack of familiarity with the details of the CATALISE documents among two thirds of the participants. Conclusions and Implications: Assessment practices broadly align with the CATALISE statements, but there is a need for greater clarity regarding terminology and the assessment of functional language impairment and impact. This research should prompt discussion in the profession about how to further develop and adopt expressive language assessment practices which reflect the CATALISE consensus and support effective assessment. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: The CATALISE consortium documents on Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) were published in 2016/17. The extent to which expressive language assessment practice in the United Kingdom reflects the new definition and statements on assessment has not previously been investigated. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This survey indicates that speech and language therapists in the United Kingdom assessing children for DLD mostly balance standardised language test scores with other sources of information in clinical decision‐making, and utilise clinical observation and language sample analysis to consider functional impairment and the impact of the language disorder. However, important questions are raised regarding the robustness and objectivity with which these key parameters are currently defined and evaluated. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Clinicians, individually and at service level, are encouraged to reflect on their assessment of functional impairment and the impact of language disorder and to take steps to incorporate this where necessary. Professional guidance and clinical tools to facilitate robust, objective assessment would support clinical practice that aligns with expert consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following a content analysis of the first 10 years of the UK professional journal Speech, this study was conducted to survey the published work of the speech (and language) therapy profession in the 20 years following the unification of two separate professional bodies into the College of Speech Therapists. Aim: To understand better the development of the speech (and language) therapy profession in the UK in order to support the development of an online history of the speech and language therapy profession in the UK. Methods & Procedures: The 40 issues of the professional journal of the College of Speech Therapists published between 1946 and 1965 (Speech and later Speech Pathology and Therapy) were examined using content analysis and the content compared with that of the same journal as it appeared from 1935 to the end of the SecondWorldWar (1945). Outcomes & Results: Many aspects of the journal and its authored papers were retained from the earlier years, for example, the range of authors' professions, their location mainly in the UK, their number of contributions and the length of papers. Changes and developments included the balance of original to republished papers, the description and discussion of new professional issues, and an extended range of client groups/disorders. Conclusions & Implications: The journal and its articles reflect the growing maturity of the newly unified profession of speech therapy and give an indication both of the expanding depth of knowledge available to speech therapists and of the rapidly increasing breadth of their work over this period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Evidence suggests telehealth in speech and language therapy can enhance access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction. However, little is known about use of telehealth in the United Kingdom. Moreover, many assessments/outcome measures for aphasia have been tested for face‐to‐face administration only, posing challenges to reliable use within the telehealth context. We explored the experiences and views of speech and language therapists (SLTs) working with people with aphasia on using telehealth to conduct assessments/outcome measures, perceived barriers and facilitators in telehealth, and their priorities for research in telehealth aphasia assessment. Method: We explored views of UK SLTs through an online cross‐sectional survey (2021) delivered through the Qualtrics platform. The survey covered three main areas: (i) participant demographics; (ii) experience of using telehealth and doing telehealth assessments with people with aphasia post‐stroke during the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (iii) plans for telehealth post‐pandemic. Response formats included yes/no, multiple choice, 5‐point Likert scales and open‐ended text responses. The survey was expected to take no more than 10 min to complete. Survey data were analysed through descriptive statistics and content analysis of open‐ended questions. Results: One hundred twenty‐four SLTs responded to the survey. The majority (>80%) used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. The most used platforms were Zoom, Microsoft Teams and Attend Anywhere. Access to internet and telehealth platforms, and practical problems (e.g., difficulties sharing resources online, limited functionality of telehealth platforms for assessment) were common barriers. Therapists highlighted that training, resources and materials that assist the administration of assessments were important. Most participants responded that there was a need for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth (n = 68, 70.8%). Participants overall felt there was a need for online interactive assessments, more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth, accessible formats for resources for people with aphasia and clear instructions for how people with aphasia can access resources. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into the current use of telehealth assessment with people with aphasia in the United Kingdom and directions for future research. Barriers and facilitators identified can support the implementation of telehealth assessment in SLT services. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: The use of telehealth in speech and language therapy has advantages in terms of access to care, cost‐effectiveness and satisfaction with care. However, little is known about the use of telehealth in aphasia rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, especially in the area of assessment and outcome measurement. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study identified that the majority (>80%) of aphasia therapists used telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic and >90% planned to continue to use telehealth in the future. A need was identified for existing measures to be tested for administration via telehealth and for training, resources (e.g., online interactive assessments) and materials (e.g., accessible formats for people with aphasia). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: To facilitate the successful implementation of telehealth assessment, there is a need for measures validated for use via telehealth and more online resources that have been trialled for use via telehealth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) and care home activities staff play key roles in managing and supporting the communication needs of older residents in care homes. However, the current practice and perspectives of these two professions in the United Kingdom has not been examined. Aims: To investigate the practice patterns and views of SLTs and activities staff working in UK care homes for older adults in relation to residents' communication needs. Methods and Procedures: Two online surveys, with 63 questions (SLT survey) and 46 questions (activities staff survey) in total, were created using the online platform Qualtrics. Participants were asked to consider their routine practice before COVID‐19. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Outcomes and Results: A total of 116 valid responses were received from SLTs and 29 valid responses from activities staff. A high level of communication needs in care homes was reported by both participant groups, as was insufficient time and resources and lack of managerial encouragement in this area. SLTs reported that the majority of referrals to their service from care homes was for swallowing needs (70%). Cognitive communication difficulty was the most commonly reported communication need by SLTs (65%). Most SLTs (73%–87%) provided some level of communication intervention and considered management of residents' communication needs to be both part of the SLT role and a good investment of their time. Lack of confidence setting goals and providing direct intervention for communication needs was reported, with 25% feeling stressed at the thought of this. The main themes from free text responses about SLT service improvement were increased staff training, funding (of resources and specialist posts) and changes to service provision (referral criteria and accessibility/awareness of SLT service). Hearing impairment was the communication need most commonly reported by activities staff (43%). Participants demonstrated relatively high awareness of communication difficulty in residents and reported high levels of knowledge and confidence identifying and supporting residents' communication. Most (79%–89%) considered identifying and supporting the communication needs of residents to be part of their role and expressed interest in receiving further training in communication support. The reported activities staff data set may be positively biased. Conclusions and Implications: SLTs and activities staff were highly motivated to support the communication needs of care home residents. Increased training, time and resources dedicated to managing the communication needs of residents emerged as opportunities for service improvement across both data sets. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: There is a high level of communication need amongst older care home residents. Social interaction and relationships are important factors contributing to quality of life in this population and rely on successful communication. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) and activities staff play key roles in managing and supporting the communication needs of this client group, but the current practice and perspectives of these professions in the United Kingdom has not been examined. What this study adds: A high level of communication need in care home residents was identified by both SLT and activities staff and both participant groups were motivated to address, identify and manage this need. However, insufficient time and resources, as well as a perceived lack of encouragement from managers to provide communication support/intervention, were reported by both groups. SLT practice was constrained by referral criteria and care pathways, which differed between services. Suggestions for SLT service improvement are reported. Clinical implications of this study: Targeted, ongoing staff training is required in care homes to improve the communication environment and develop care home staff capacity to support residents' communication needs. There is also a call for service level improvements to increase the range of SLT practice in care homes, including a greater focus on communication needs and more specialist (e.g., dementia) SLT roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: After total laryngectomy, surgical voice restoration is used to establish communication via tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis. Once voice is established, there is a paucity of information on what speech and language therapists (SLTs) should do to improve tracheoesophageal voice quality to ensure functional communication. No existing surveys or studies investigate this specific question. There is also a disconnect between guidelines, knowledge and clinical practice, whereby clinical guidelines stipulate the requirement for SLT intervention, but do not detail what this entails in the rehabilitation context. Aims: (1) To advance understanding of current clinical practice beyond voice prosthesis management and care. (2) To explore what approaches are implemented in clinical practice across the UK and Republic of Ireland to rehabilitate tracheoesophageal voice. (3) To investigate the barriers and facilitators to provision of tracheoesophageal voice therapy. Methods & Procedures: A self‐administered 10‐min online survey was developed using Qualtrics software and piloted before dissemination. Survey development was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify barriers, facilitators and additional factors contributing to SLTs' provision of voice therapy to tracheoesophageal speakers. The survey was disseminated via social media and professional networks. Eligibility criteria included SLTs with at least one year post‐registration experience and with experience of working with laryngectomy in the past 5 years. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse closed answer questions. Open question responses were analysed using content analysis. Outcomes & Results: The survey received 147 responses. Participants were representative of the head and neck cancer SLT workforce. SLTs believe that tracheoesophageal voice therapy is an important aspect of laryngectomy rehabilitation; however, there was a lack of knowledge about therapy approaches and insufficient resources for implementing therapy. SLTs expressed a desire for more training, specific guidelines and a stronger evidence base to inform clinical practice. Some SLTs expressed feelings of frustration and lack of acknowledgement for the specialist skills required to undertake laryngectomy rehabilitation and tracheoesophageal work in general. Conclusions & Implications: The survey identifies the need for a robust training approach and detailed clinical guidelines to promote consistent practice across the profession. The evidence base within this clinical area is emergent, hence there is a need for increased research and clinical audit to inform practice. Under‐resourcing was highlighted, which should be considered in service planning to ensure that adequate staff, access to expert practitioners or time ring‐fenced for therapy are available for tracheoesophageal speakers to receive the support they require. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Total laryngectomy results in life‐altering changes to communication. Clinical guidelines advocate for speech and language therapy intervention; however, there is no clear information on what SLTs should do to optimize tracheoesophageal voice and the evidence base to support practice is lacking. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This survey identifies what interventions SLTs provide in clinical practice to rehabilitate tracheoesophageal voice; and it explores the barriers and facilitators that influence the provision of tracheoesophageal voice therapy. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Specific training, clinical guidelines, increased research and audit are required to support clinical practice in laryngectomy rehabilitation. Service planning should address the under‐resourcing of staff, expert practitioners and therapy allocated time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing recognition of the impact that dementia has upon swallowing and at mealtimes, and the significant effect this can have on people with dementia's health and well‐being. However, there remains a paucity of evidence for assessment and intervention practices for dysphagia and mealtime difficulties. Furthermore, there is a limited understanding of how speech and language therapists (SLTs) support people with these dementia‐related issues and what are the barriers and facilitators to practice. Further research is therefore needed to guide policy as well as service guideline and delivery development. Aims: To establish the current practices of SLTs managing dementia‐related dysphagia and mealtime difficulties in the UK and Republic of Ireland (ROI), and to establish their opinions and experiences of what challenges or supports to practice they have encountered. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous, cross‐sectional web‐based survey was developed and distributed to SLTs working in the UK and ROI. Respondents completed a questionnaire that consisted of open and closed questions across nine topic areas. Closed responses were evaluated using descriptive statistics; open‐ended questions were analysed using conventional content analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 310 people accessed the survey, and 125 respondents completed it fully. While respondents agreed on their role in dysphagia management, they varied in their views on the extent of their role in managing mealtime difficulties. Additionally, their self‐rated knowledge of mealtime difficulties in dementia was lower than their dysphagia knowledge. The respondents predominantly based their management decisions on their clinical experience of working with people with dementia. They primarily used compensatory strategies and frequently cited the need for family and care staff training. Respondents also highlighted barriers to effective management and training provision such as inefficient referral systems, a lack of carer knowledge and lack of SLT resources. Conclusions & Implications: The results provide valuable insight into the issues facing SLTs practising in this area. The SLTs surveyed considered dysphagia a core part of their role when supporting people with dementia; however, respondents' views on mealtime difficulties varied. This highlights the need to establish consensus guidelines on the SLT's role in order to avoid variations in service delivery that could negatively impact the health and well‐being of people with dementia. Moreover, further research to develop efficient and effective training for care staff supporting mealtime difficulties and dysphagia is essential. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectResearch indicates that people with dementia develop dysphagia and mealtime difficulties as dementia progresses. SLTs often manage these, but there is no research on the effective assessment and management procedures, or guidance on best practice.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper provides an understanding of the variation in practice across the UK and ROI. Respondents described barriers to delivering an effective service and frequently linked these to the SLTs' resources as well as service constraints.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?These findings support the need for future research to develop guidelines for SLT practice in this area. They also support the need to examine resource allocation and workforce management to enable SLTs to manage dementia‐related dysphagia and mealtime difficulties effectively. [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: Discourse assessment and treatment in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority focus for a range of stakeholder groups. However, a significant majority of speech and language therapists (SLTs) infrequently conduct discourse analysis, and do not feel competent in doing so. Known barriers identified in other countries, specifically a lack of time, training, expertise and resources, affect use of discourse analysis in clinical practice. Aims: To investigate UK SLTs' reported practices and views of discourse analysis, barriers and facilitators, and clinical feasibility in aphasia rehabilitation. Methods & Procedures: An online survey of 52 questions adapted from existing research and incorporating behaviour change literature was created for the study and piloted. UK SLTs working in aphasia rehabilitation for at least 6 months were invited to participate. Potential participants were contacted through national and local clinical excellence networks, a National Health Service (NHS) bespoke e‐mail list, and national magazine advertisement, and the study was also advertised on social media (Twitter). Therapists read an online participant information sheet and submitted individual electronic consent online; then progressed to the Qualtrics survey. Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistical analyses were conducted, and content analysis was carried out on the questions requiring text. Outcomes & Results: A total of 211 valid responses were received from primarily female SLTs, aged 20–40 years, working full‐time in the NHS in England, in community, inpatient and acute/subacute multidisciplinary settings. A total of 30% SLTs collected discourse analysis often, were mostly very experienced, and working part‐time in community settings. Years of experience was predictive of use. Discourse was most often collected using standardized picture descriptions and recounts during initial assessment. Samples were infrequently recorded, and typically transcribed in real‐time. Most SLTs (53–95%) reported making clinical judgements or manually counted words, sentences, communication of ideas and errors, and were confident in doing so. Barriers included time constraints; lack of expertise, confidence, training, resources and equipment; and patient severity. Discourse 'super‐users' were distinguished by significantly higher professional motivation for discourse and workplace opportunity than other SLTs, and 'non‐users' were distinguished by significantly less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis than other SLTs. SLTs reported a desire and need for training, new/assistive tools and time to do more discourse analysis in practice. Conclusions & Implications: Clinicians were highly engaged and relatively active in at least some aspects of discourse analysis practice. Interventions that target individual clinicians as well as organizations and systems are needed to improve the uptake of discourse analysis in practice. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subject?Discourse in aphasia rehabilitation is a priority in clinical practice and research. However, the majority of clinicians infrequently collect and analyse discourse. Research in Australia and the United States indicated that lack of time, assessment resources and relevant knowledge and skills are the main barriers to use.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeCompared with existing research, UK SLTs were more likely to see discourse analysis as part of their role and experienced fewer barriers, and more SLTs did it at least sometimes in clinic. However, practices were limited by lack of training, giving rise to challenges in selecting and interpreting findings for clients. More use was predicted by more experience and commitment to discourse analysis, particularly where workplaces supported this approach. Less use was associated with less knowledge and skills in discourse analysis. Practice and decision‐making were influenced by client factors and constrained to a lesser degree by logistical challenges.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this study?Education and training in discourse analyses and in specific procedures are needed to improve individual clinicians' knowledge, skills and confidence in using discourse analysis for clients' rehabilitation. Equally, organizational and systems changes are needed to promote, support and reinforce discourse analysis in the workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research evidence suggests aphasia therapy must be delivered at high intensity to effect change. Comprehensive therapy, addressing all domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, is also called for by people with aphasia and their families. However, aphasia therapy is rarely intense or comprehensive. Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) were designed to address this challenge, but such programmes are not widely implemented. Aims: This study surveyed the views of UK‐based speech and language therapists (SLTs) regarding intensive and comprehensive aphasia therapy. It explored definitions of intensive and comprehensive therapy, patterns of provision, views about candidacy and barriers/facilitators. It also investigated awareness of ICAPs and perceived potential of this service model. Differences across UK regions and workplace settings were explored. Methods & Procedures: An e‐survey ran for 5 months. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative free text comments were analysed using content analysis. Outcomes & Results: Two hundred twenty‐seven respondents engaged in the e‐survey. Definitions of intensive aphasia therapy did not reach UK clinical guideline/research‐level thresholds for most of the sample. Those providing more therapy provided definitions with higher standards of intensity. Mean therapy delivered was 128 min/week. Geographical location and workplace setting influenced the amount of therapy delivered. The most frequently delivered therapy approaches were functional language therapy and impairment‐based therapy. Cognitive disability and fatigue were concerns for therapy candidacy. Barriers included lack of resources and low levels of optimism that issues could be solved. 50% of respondents were aware of ICAPs and 15 had been involved in ICAP provision. Only 16.5% felt their service could be reconfigured to deliver an ICAP. Conclusions & Implications: This e‐survey evidences a mismatch between an SLT's concept of intensity and that espoused by clinical guidelines/research. Geographical variations in intensity are concerning. Although a wide range of therapy approaches are offered, certain aphasia therapies are delivered more frequently. Awareness of ICAPs was relatively high, but few respondents had experience of this model or felt it could be executed in their context. Further initiatives are needed if services are to move from a low‐dose or non‐comprehensive model of delivery. Such initiatives might include but not be confined to wider uptake of ICAPs. Pragmatic research might also explore which treatments are efficacious with a low‐dose model of delivery, given that this model is dominant in the United Kingdom. These clinical and research implications are raised in the discussion. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: There is a gap between the high intensity of aphasia treatment provided in research versus mainstream clinical settings. A lower standard of 45 min/day set by UK clinical guidelines is also not achieved. Although speech and language therapists (SLTs) provide a wide range of therapies, they typically focus on impairment‐based approaches. What this study adds: This is the first survey of UK SLTs asking about their concept of intensity in aphasia therapy and what types of aphasia therapy they provide. It explores geographical and workplace variations and barriers and facilitators to aphasia therapy provision. It investigates Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programmes (ICAPs) in a UK context. What are the clinical implications of this work?: There are barriers to the provision of intensive and comprehensive therapy in the United Kingdom and reservations about the feasibility of ICAPs in a mainstream UK context. However, there are also facilitators to aphasia therapy provision and evidence that a small proportion of UK SLTs are providing intensive/comprehensive aphasia therapy). Dissemination of good practice is necessary and suggestions for increasing intensity of service provision are listed in the discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The critical role of phonetic transcription in the assessment, diagnosis and management of speech disorders is well established and thus pre‐registration degrees dedicate numerous hours to phonetic training. However, this training is not always fully used in clinical work and clinicians may find it difficult to maintain their skills, suggesting a ‘theory/practice gap’. Aims: This paper surveys speech and language therapists’ (SLTs) views of their training, practice and maintenance of transcription in order to investigate the posited theory/practice gap and to explore how education in phonetics is translated into practice. Methods & Procedures: A total of 759 SLTs from the UK were surveyed via an online questionnaire. Multiple‐choice questions were analysed using descriptive statistics, and free‐text comments were analysed thematically. Outcomes & Results: Thirty‐five per cent of SLTs found learning phonetics quite easy, and 30% quite difficult. Respondents suggested that more time was needed to practise transcription in and out of the classroom; nevertheless, the majority felt at least equipped to undertake transcription after their training. A total of 75% of SLTs require transcription for their role, with 61% using it often or all the time. Some 45% use a mix of broad and narrow transcription, with 41% using only broad transcription. Those not using narrow transcription attributed this to lack of confidence. A total of 57% of SLTs did not feel supported to maintain transcription skills in the workplace, and 80% had never attended a refresher course in transcription, with 75% wishing to do so. Conclusions & Implications: As many clinicians found it difficult to learn transcription, there is an opportunity to provide more transcription practice both in and beyond the classroom. Despite most clinicians feeling equipped to undertake transcription upon completion of their training, and a large majority requiring transcription for their role, a theory/practice gap is apparent in the relatively small number of clinicians using narrow transcription exclusively, and those not using it expressing lack of confidence in their skills. Additionally, as many clinicians have never attended refresher training in transcription, and rely on their course notes to maintain their skills, more provision of opportunities for revision should be made available. With clinicians remembering a need for more practice during their training, and expressing a desire for more training opportunities in practice, there is an opportunity for clinicians, educators and regulatory bodies to work together to provide packages of transcription training material that can be used by students and practitioners to maintain and extend their skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation has become the gold standard for tumour resection in eloquent areas of the brain. Patients' speech during the procedure can inform the intervention and evidence for language experts to support the procedure is building. Within the UK a burgeoning speech and language therapist awake craniotomy network has emerged to support this practice. Further evidence is needed to underpin the specific contribution of speech and language therapists working within the awake craniotomy service. Aims: To investigate and analyse the current practices of speech and language therapists: their role, pre‐, intra‐ and postoperative assessment, and management practice patterns and skill set within awake craniotomy. Methods & Procedures: Speech and language therapists in the UK, who work in awake craniotomy, were invited to complete an online questionnaire. Participants were recruited via several networks supported by a social media campaign. Data were analysed using a mixed methodology approach including descriptive statistics, summative and conventional content analysis. Outcomes & Results: A total of 24 speech and language therapists completed the survey, an unknown proportion of the available population. All four UK countries were represented. The majority were highly specialist clinicians 58% (n = 14) with the remainder clinical leads 25% (n = 6) or specialist clinicians 17% (n = 14). Only 29% (n = 7) had funding for awake craniotomy or had awake craniotomy in their job description. Median experience with awake craniotomy was 3 years. Median estimated contact time per case was 10.3 h. Current intraoperative practice is characterized by a sustained period of real‐time, dynamic, informal assessment of speech, language, oromotor and cognitive functions. Respondents described a range of intraoperative clinical deficits that, once detected, are immediately communicated to surgeons. There was evidence of variable and diverse language mapping practices and barriers to the translation of information at multidisciplinary team level. Barriers to participation in awake craniotomy included lack of: standardized validated language mapping methods, funding, standardized training methods and guidance to direct practice. Conclusions & Implications: The evidence suggests areas of consistent practice patterns in preoperative preparation and intraoperative assessment. However, considerable variability exists within language testing and mapping that would benefit from validation. These speech and language therapists support improved outcomes of awake craniotomy by real‐time intraoperative speech, language, oromotor and cognitive assessment, rapid detection of clinical deterioration and immediate communication to surgeons. Further research exploring intraoperative language testing, consistent use of language mapping terminology, and selection of test methods is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Evidence-based practice includes research evidence, clinical expertise and stakeholder perspectives. Stakeholder perspectives are important and include parental ethno-theories, which embrace views about many aspects of speech, language and communication, language development, and interventions. The Developmental Niche Framework provides a useful theory to understand parental beliefs. Ethnotheories, including those about language development, delay and interventions, may vary cross culturally and are less well understood in relation to families who may be considered 'under-served' or 'hard-to-reach' by speech and language therapy services. Who is considered to be under-served and the reasons why some families are under-served are complex. Aim To describe beliefs and reported practices, in relation to speech and language development, delay and intervention, of parents and carers from a small number of groups in England who were perceived to be under-served in relation to SLT services. Methods & Procedures As part of a wider National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded study (Child Talk), seven focus groups (with a total of 52 participants) were held with parents from three communities in England. Topics addressed included beliefs about language development, language delay and parents' reported responses to language delay. Data were transcribed and analysed using adapted framework analysis, which also drew on directed content analysis. Outcomes & Results Four themes resulted that broadly matched the topics addressed in the focus groups: language development and the environment; causes and signs of speech and language delay; responses to concerns about speech, language and communication; and improving SLT. These produced some previously unreported ideas, e.g., about how language develops and the causes of delay. Conclusions & Implications The findings are discussed in relation to previous literature and the Developmental Niche Framework. Clinical implications include ideas about issues for SLTs to discuss with families and the need to recognize that parents may see themselves as competent facilitators of language. Suggestions are made for future research, including: expanded investigation of a wider range of under-served groups, an exploration of who parents consult when concerned about their child's language, and how key community figures advise parents in relation to language delay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The psychosocial impact of stroke and aphasia is considerable. Aims To explore UK speech-and-language therapists' (SLTs) clinical practice in addressing the psychological and social needs of people with aphasia, including their experiences of working with mental health professionals. Methods & Procedures A 22-item online survey was distributed to UK SLTs via the British Aphasiology Society mailing list and Clinical Excellence Networks. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Outcomes & Results UK SLTs ( n = 124) overwhelmingly considered that addressing psychological well-being (93%) and social participation (99%) was part of their role. To achieve this, they frequently/very frequently used supportive listening (100%) and selected holistic goals collaboratively with clients (87%), including social goals (83%). However, only 42% felt confident in addressing the psychological needs of clients. The main barriers to addressing psychosocial well-being were time/caseload pressures (72%); feeling under-skilled/lack of training (64%), and lack of ongoing support (61%). The main barriers to referring on to mental health professionals were that mental health professionals were perceived as under-skilled when working with people with aphasia (44%); were difficult to access (41%); and provided only a limited service (37%). A main theme from the free-text responses was a concern that those with aphasia, particularly more severe aphasia, received inadequate psychological support due to the stretched nature of many mental health services; mental health professionals lacking skills working with aphasia; and SLTs lacking the necessary time, training and support. The main enablers to addressing psychosocial well-being were collaborative working between SLTs and stroke-specialist clinical psychologists; SLTs with training in providing psychological and social therapy; and ongoing support provided by the voluntary sector. Conclusions & Implications The vast majority of SLTs consider the psychosocial well-being of their clients, and work collaboratively with people with aphasia in selecting holistic goals. It is, however, of concern that most respondents felt they lacked confidence and received insufficient training to address psychological well-being. In order to improve psychological services for this client group, there is a strong case that stroke-specialist mental health professionals should strive to make their service truly accessible to people with even severe aphasia, which may involve working more closely with SLTs. Further, improving the skills and confidence of SLTs may be an effective way of addressing psychological distress in people with aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with tracheostomy tubes are at risk of aspiration and swallowing problems (dysphagia), and because of their medical acuity, complications in this patient population can be severe. It is well recognized that swallow screening in stroke significantly reduces potential complications by allowing early identification and appropriate management of patients at risk (by health professionals), thereby reducing delays in commencing oral intake and preventing unnecessary, costly interventions by speech and language therapists (SLTs). However, there is no standardized swallow screen for the tracheostomised population and there is a paucity of literature regarding either current or best practice in this area. Aims To investigate current UK practice for dysphagia screening in adult patients with tracheostomy tubes and to explore and describe health professionals' perceptions of their current practice or current systems used. Methods & Procedures A mixed-methods approach was adopted comprising a semi-structured online questionnaire and recorded follow-up telephone interviews. Participants were SLTs, nurses and physiotherapists working with patients with tracheostomies. Responses were analysed to determine current practice with regard to swallow screening. Thematic analysis of interviews allowed further exploration and clarification of the questionnaire findings. Outcomes & Results A total of 221 questionnaires were completed. Approximately half (45%) the participants worked in trusts with formal swallow screens, whilst the remainder used a variety of other approaches to identify patients at risk, often relying on informal links with multidisciplinary teams (MDT). In line with current evidence, patients with neurological diagnoses and a tracheostomy were consistently referred directly to speech and language therapy (SLT). Only one-quarter of questionnaire participants thought their current system was effective at identifying patients at risk of swallowing problems. Eleven questionnaire participants were interviewed. They highlighted the important role of MDT team working here, emphasizing both its strengths and weaknesses when working with these patients. Conclusions & Implications Current practice in the UK for screening patients with a tracheostomy for swallow problems is varied and often suboptimal. Despite the evidence for enhancing outcomes, MDT working is still perceived as problematic. A swallow screening tool for use with this population, to enhance MDT working whilst also ensuring that practice fits in line with current evidence, may improve patient safety and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]