Search

Background: COVID‐19 necessitated emergency telepractice for student‐led speech‐language therapy clinical practicals in training institutions, with limited preparation and evidence‐based guidelines. Beyond the pandemic, practitioners and university training sites are likely to continue to offer telepractice necessitating thorough preparation for telepractice services underpinned by a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in online therapy. Aims: Adopting realist evaluation principles, our aim in this paper was to explore broadly what works and does not work in a set of student‐led telepractice sessions in a diverse, resource‐limited context. The broader goal of this project was to provide evidence‐based support to enhance the efficiency and success of telepractice sessions in student clinical training contexts. Methods & Procedures: We used qualitative observational methods with reflexive thematic analysis to analyse 28 video recordings and 61 observation notes of student‐led paediatric telepractice sessions from a South African university clinic as part of a pilot study. Outcomes & Results: We identified four overarching considerations for student‐led telepractice: (1) additional, specific preparation is required, (2) with greater management of technology and adaptation of tasks, especially during times of poor connectivity; (3) telepractice relies heavily on caregiver input and collaboration; and (4) promoting engagement online, holding a client's attention, building rapport and offering reinforcement are critical skills that are complicated by the lack of face‐to‐face contact. Conclusions & Implications: Our findings indicate that telepractice pedagogy needs to be explicitly taught and students require practical assistance as they learn how to use this service delivery approach effectively. There are some aspects peculiar to telepractice that require unique consideration and planning, especially in contexts where service providers and users may be unfamiliar with this form of service provision. The findings of this pilot study can be used by clinical educators and student clinicians to enhance clinical training opportunities involving telepractice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Many speech‐language therapy (SLT) student clinicians had to transition quickly to telepractice service provision during COVID‐19 with limited existing guidelines and support, especially in contexts where teletherapy is typically non‐existent or difficult to access. Although there is some literature available on experiences of telepractice, there is very little evidence‐based research which explores the mechanics of such sessions in real‐time and which offers practical support to student clinicians and clinical educators engaging in this mode of service delivery. What this study adds: This pilot study examined video‐recorded, student‐led, paediatric, speech‐language teletherapy sessions to understand challenges and considerations involved in using telepractice as a clinical training tool. Findings show that additional preparation for telepractice sessions is required, particularly in contexts of poor digital literacy; students must learn to manage technology, especially when connectivity poses a challenge, and adapt therapy tasks for online work with clients; telepractice relies heavily on caregiver input and collaboration, more so than in in‐person consultations, and this relationship requires careful management; and promoting engagement online, holding a client's attention, building rapport and offering reinforcement are critical yet challenging skills in telepractice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Our findings highlight a need to teach telepractice pedagogy explicitly and support students practically in learning how to provide therapy effectively via this mode of service delivery. Observational methods for studying practices in recorded telepractice sessions can be used as part of a reflective approach to clinical training. Using already available data allowed us to unpack the 'messy reality' of clinical training using telepractice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critically ill patients have the right to communicate and participate in their treatment to avoid adverse medical outcomes due to the severity of their illness, their responsiveness, and level of consciousness. This human right has often been neglected by health care professionals, as a result of limited alternative communication support provided to patients who are unable to speak due to, for example, endotracheal intubation. Despite the successful use of alternative communication strategies in critical care units (CCUs) in other countries, limited implementation in South African hospitals has been reported. Aims and objectives: This study aimed to determine the perspectives of South African nurses working in CCUs on the frequency of use of alternative communication strategies to support patient‐centred communication with critically ill adult patients. Design: The study followed a quantitative non‐experimental survey research design. Methods: A total of 210 nurses working in both private and public hospitals completed a survey on their perspectives on the use of alternative communication strategies in CCUs. Results: Nurse participants reported experience working with critically ill and communication‐vulnerable patients. Nurse–patient communication mainly involved the use of pen and paper, facial expressions and gestures to obtain information relating to patients' needs and their health history. Limited use of speech‐generating communication devices was reported. Conclusion: Nurse training on the use and implementation of alternative communication strategies, such as communication boards or electronic speech‐generating devices, should be investigated to improve nurses' communication with communication‐vulnerable patients in South Africa. Relevance to clinical practice: The results are applicable in clinical practice due to patients' need for alternative communication. The nurses mainly used low‐tech solutions, which are cheap and easy to access. However, there exists an opportunity to increase the use of available digital solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing recognition that dysphagia has significant implications for a person's psychological well‐being, social participation and quality of life (QOL). However, a paucity of research exists regarding the clinical management of this area. To inform future research and the development of appropriate and beneficial resources and guidelines, a better understanding of the current practice of speech and language therapists (SLTs) in this area would be useful. This information will highlight current challenges to clinical practice and the ongoing development needs of the profession, which are, as of yet, undocumented. Aims: To determine the practices of SLTs when addressing QOL issues in individuals with dysphagia, the beliefs of SLTs regarding the impact of dysphagia on QOL, the current trends in assessing and managing QOL in dysphagia, and if variations in beliefs and practices in this area exist. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous cross‐sectional, non‐experimental survey study was used. The survey consisted of 18 questions exploring participants' beliefs and opinions regarding dysphagia and QOL, current clinical practice in the area, perceived facilitators and barriers, and education, training and development needs. The survey was created on Survey Monkey and disseminated by e‐mail link to SLT professional bodies. Purposive and snowball sampling were used and participants self‐selected based on the information provided alongside the e‐mail link. Inclusion criteria for the study were a qualification in speech and language therapy, proficiency in the English language, and access to a computer with the internet. Outcomes & Results: A total of 148 SLTs working across the UK, Ireland and South Africa completed the survey. Over 90% of respondents believe that dysphagia has a negative impact on QOL, but only 25% are currently satisfied with the amount of clinical time they can dedicate to this area. Staffing, resources, a lack of best‐practice guidelines and disease‐specific QOL assessment tools were cited as contributing factors. A number of facilitators and barriers to best practice were also highlighted. Based on these findings, professional development actions for the future are suggested. Conclusions & Implications: SLTs believe they have an important role to play in supporting QOL issues in dysphagia. However, it is reported that the area is currently under‐developed, under‐resourced and under‐supported. Increased awareness raising of the role of SLT, alongside the development of best‐practice guidelines and disease‐specific QOL assessment tools, will enhance the quality of care that can be offered in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]