Search

Many Australians are requiring mental health care, including families, leading to long wait times in order to access support. Walk‐in therapy reduces barriers to mental health support services by providing support at the time that families seek help. This paper presents a proof‐of‐concept study investigating the acceptability and short‐term effectiveness of an online walk‐in family therapy service, Walk‐in Together (WIT). Part 1 of the paper describes the experiences of 44 family members from 22 families who presented to a public family therapy clinic for a virtual walk‐in family therapy session. The session was conducted by a team of three experienced family therapists. Family members' experiences were sought pre‐session, post‐session, and at 6 weeks follow‐up via survey and interview. Part 2 of the paper explores therapist perceptions (n = 7) of the WIT approach, through thematic analysis of semi‐structured interview data. Post‐session feedback showed 85% of family members found WIT to be helpful and 50% were optimistic about their future as a family after their WIT session. Six weeks post‐session it was revealed that WIT supported planning for families in equipping them to move forward with 88% of family members reporting that they knew what to do after the session. All therapists uniformly experienced the model as offering a timely and beneficial service, suitable for diverse presentations and constellations of families. These preliminary results suggest the significant utility of this WIT intervention as a well‐received and helpful service for families, who valued the easy access and rapid therapeutic response afforded by the online, walk‐in delivery model. This proof‐of‐concept paper suggests the potential for further development and growth of WIT, as well as other mental health support services using a walk‐in, telehealth model to meet the rising demand for therapeutic support for families in distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow‐up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two‐way information sharing and clear follow‐up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted pre‐ and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. Results: Thirty‐two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow‐up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer‐specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low‐risk, stable patients around 2–3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow‐up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. Conclusion: Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow‐up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed. [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: Despite emerging evidence of validity and reliability, speech and language therapists' (SLT) uptake of telehealth has been limited and barriers remain to the effective and confident use of this service model. The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to essential health services, including speech and language therapy assessment and intervention, meaning that telehealth must now be considered as part of the suite of service delivery options for all clinicians. Aims: To explore the perceived barriers and facilitators of telehealth among community paediatric SLTs before and after their use of a telehealth platform with an embedded standardised assessment tool. Methods & Procedures: Mixed‐methods questionnaires were developed for this study and completed by SLTs before and after the 3‐month trial of the telehealth platform. A total of 38 SLTs completed the pre‐trial questionnaire and training in the use of telehealth platform (Coviu), including instruction in using a standardised, norm referenced language test as an integrated tool within the Coviu platform. A total of 27 SLTs went on to use the telehealth platform, and 25 of these completed the post‐trial questionnaire on which subsequent qualitative and quantitative analysis was completed. Outcomes & Results: Prior to using the platform, perceived barriers included technology issues, limited clinician experience and concerns around parent acceptance of the service. Potential facilitators included access to appropriate platforms, tools and resources as well as increased clinician confidence with telehealth. Following the trial, barriers to telehealth use continued to include technology barriers, particularly internet stability, and client issues, including suitability for telehealth services. Facilitators for future telehealth use included access to appropriate platforms for telehealth, stable and appropriate internet connectivity, and more extensive telehealth resources for both assessment and intervention for this mode of service delivery. Conclusions & Implications: This study provides insights into the perceptions of the barriers and facilitating factors for telehealth use among community‐based SLTs. This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery beyond the pandemic. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Research about telehealth has shown that it is a reliable and valid way of delivering speech pathology services, yet many clinicians have been wary of its use and uptake of telehealth prior to COVID‐19 had been limited. We wanted to know what SLTs thought about using telehealth before and after participating in a 3‐month trial of a telehealth platform with an embedded formal language assessment. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study indicates that technology issues including internet stability are a barrier to effective telehealth services, but that appropriate telehealth platforms, resources and experience are facilitators of uptake and successful use of telehealth. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This information will be useful in developing strategies to promote uptake and effective and confident use of telehealth as a mode of service delivery for children during and beyond the pandemic, including those isolated by geographical or transport barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]