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: 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: 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 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]

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]