Search

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: 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]

Background: Online knowledge translation (KT) approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent within healthcare due to their accessibility and facilitation of international support networks. Online platforms enable timely and far‐reaching dissemination of current evidence and best‐practice recommendations. Although there is potential to improve the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines, it is essential to consider the acceptability of online approaches to healthcare professionals to ensure their successful integration within everyday clinical settings. Aims: To establish the prospective acceptability of a theoretically informed online intervention for speech pathologists, Aphasia Nexus: Connecting Evidence to Practice, that aims to facilitate the implementation of aphasia best practice. Methods & Procedures: A mixed‐methods multinational electronic survey based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) completed by aphasia researchers and clinicians. Outcomes & Results: A total of 43 participants completed the survey with 91% (n = 39) indicating that they would use Aphasia Nexus. Understanding the intervention and how it works (intervention coherence as per the TFA) was the key factor influencing the likelihood of integration within everyday clinical practice. Participants identified potential areas where the intervention could influence service change and also recommended further design and content changes to improve the intervention. Conclusions & Implications: Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable platform for further feasibility testing in the form of a pilot trial within an Australian‐based health service. The study progresses the theory of TFA as it was a valuable framework facilitating the identification of prominent factors influencing acceptability. The study also informs further intervention refinements in preparation for the next stage of research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Online strategies have the potential to enhance KT and promote the uptake of rehabilitation guidelines. An online intervention, however, can only be effective if implemented well. For this reason, it is essential to establish the acceptability of online interventions to the intended recipients and therefore increase the likelihood of successful implementation. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study used a theoretically based framework to establish the acceptability of an online implementation intervention, Aphasia Nexus, to multinational aphasia clinicians and researchers. It demonstrated the value in identifying the prominent factors influencing acceptability to inform further intervention refinements and warrant continuing research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Speech pathologists should use online platforms to drive the implementation of best practice on an international scale. It is important for clinicians to have an in‐depth understanding of online interventions and how they work to enhance their successful uptake into routine clinical practice. Aphasia Nexus is an acceptable online platform for implementing best practice in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 12(c) of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) prohibits authorised health claims in consumer‐facing commercial communications which make reference to the recommendations of individual doctors or health professionals. However, this has been controversial amongst dietitians and nutritionists who work in commercial settings. Given the lack of empirical data, a survey was conducted amongst UK‐based nutrition professionals to assess their knowledge of, and attitudes to, Article 12(c). The findings revealed confusion about the scope of the regulation and how it applies to working practices, with a considerable proportion of respondents being unable to recognise examples of commercial communications or health claims, indicating a need for additional training. There was also a broad interpretation of what nutrition professionals could, and could not, say about a hypothetical food product. This paper explores current guidance in Great Britain and debates the proportionality and fairness of Article 12(c), which, at present, does not regulate authorised health claims made by influencers or celebrities in commercial communications to consumers. It could be argued that consumers are better protected by the articulation of health claims by nutrition professionals who are guided by codes of practice rather than by unqualified, unregulated individuals. Hence, it is essential to level the regulatory playing field either by revising the NHCR to amend Article 12(c) or by updating the guidance to apply an interpretation of the Article's intention which enables a broader role for nutrition professionals in commercial communications. Such action would also be consistent with the UK's better regulation agenda to ensure evidence‐based, proportionate regulation for industry. [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: Silent aspiration (SA)—airway entry of food, drink or other material without a cough response—is common post‐stroke. Clinical swallowing examination misses up to 40% of dysphagic patients with SA. This may put these patients at risk of aspiration pneumonia, prolonged length of hospital stay and increased healthcare costs. After stroke, the laryngeal cough reflex is frequently impaired with significant relationships between pneumonia rates and reduced cough strength and sensitivity. There has been a significant amount of recent interest in cough reflex testing (CRT) as a potential means to improve clinical identification of patients at risk of SA. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the methodology and protocols for use of CRT with widely varying outcomes reported in the literature. Aims: To provide an overview of current practice in the UK with regards to clinical use of CRT by speech and language therapists (SLTs) in acute stroke settings and to explore the perceptions regarding its potential application in clinical dysphagia management and the barriers and facilitators associated with adopting CRT in clinical practice. Methods & Procedures: A cross‐sectional web‐based survey was developed, piloted and delivered. The survey targeted all UK‐based SLTs working in acute stroke settings. Outcomes & Results: A total of 129 SLTs with varying levels of experience of CRT from all regions of the UK responded. Only four SLT services in the UK were reported to be currently using CRT clinically with acute stroke patients. A total of 29% of respondents who were not using CRT were considering introducing CRT into their service's dysphagia protocol. Variation was reported in the procedures and protocols. Overall, users reported improved confidence in the clinical detection of SA and felt that the introduction of CRT had improved their patient‐related outcomes. Issues included difficulties procuring citric acid, implications for SLT time (including service set‐up and delivery of CRT) and restricted access to instrumental assessments. Conclusions & Implications: This survey gives valuable insight into the current practice and perceptions of SLTs in the UK working in acute stroke settings in relation to CRT. It highlights discrepancies between reported approaches and recommendations from existing guidelines and validation studies. The variation in responses indicates a need to develop a consensus statement and further research to guide practice. What this study addsWhat is already known on the subjectCRT is gaining popularity as a screening tool for the clinical identification of SA with acute stroke patients. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the methodology and protocols with widely varying outcomes. Further work needs to be done to standardize its use, especially if it is to be incorporated into dysphagia protocols for use in the acute stroke setting.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis survey of SLTs working in acute stroke settings highlights variability in practice in CRT service delivery in the UK, reflecting findings from the existing CRT literature.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?The findings of this study support the need for further research relating to clinical screening tests for SA and standardization of methodology and protocols for CRT use if its use is to be continued clinically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]