Search

Background: Many speech sound disorder (SSD) interventions with a long‐term evidence base are 'new' to clinical practice, and the role of services in supporting or constraining capacity for practice change is underexplored. Innovations from implementation science may offer solutions to this research–practice gap but have not previously been applied to SSD. Aim: To explain variation in speech and language therapy service capacity to implement new SSD interventions. Methods & Procedures: We conducted an intensive, case‐based qualitative study with 42 speech and language therapists (SLTs) in three NHS services (n = 39) and private practice (n = 3) in Scotland. We explored therapists' diverse experiences of SSD practice change through individual interviews (n = 28) or self‐generated paired (n = 2) or focus groups (n = 3). A theoretical framework (Normalization Process Theory) helped us understand how the service context contributed to the way therapists engaged with different practice changes. Outcomes & Results: We identified six types ('cases') of practice change, two of which involved the new SSD interventions. We focus on these two cases ('Transforming' and 'Venturing') and use Normalization Process Theory's Cognitive participation construct to explain implementation (or not) of new SSD interventions in routine practice. Therapists were becoming aware of the new interventions through knowledge brokers, professional networks and an intervention database. In the Transforming case, new SSD interventions for selected children were becoming part of local routine practice. Transforming was the result of a favourable service structure, a sustained and supported 'push' that made implementation of the new interventions a service priority, and considerable collective time to think about doing it. 'Venturing' happened where the new SSD interventions were not a service priority. It involved individual or informal groups of therapists trying out or using one or more of the new interventions with selected children within the constraints of their service context. Conclusions & implications: New, evidence‐based SSD interventions may be challenging to implement in routine practice because they have in common a need for therapists who understand applied linguistics and can be flexible with service delivery. Appreciating what it really takes to do routine intervention differently is vital for managers and services who have to make decisions about priorities for implementation, along with realistic plans for resourcing and supporting it. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Many SSD interventions have an evidence base but are not widely adopted into routine clinical practice. Addressing this is not just about individual therapists or education/training, as workplace pressures and service delivery models make it difficult to change practice. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This paper applies innovations from implementation science to help explain how what is going on in services can support or constrain capacity for implementing evidence‐based SSD interventions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Service managers and therapists will have a clearer idea of the time and support they may realistically have to invest for new SSD interventions to be used routinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Cancer diagnosis is a complex and multifaceted process that can be stressful and anxiety-provoking for patients. Evidence-based tools and information aids that can be used for guiding and supporting patients during cancer investigations and after diagnosis are limited. This paper presents a user-centred codesign project that aims to develop a cancer pathway support tool for patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Method. A mixed-method codesign approach was used including prototype development (January–March 2022), three online codesign workshops (April–June 2022), one-to-one feedback, and beta testing informed by the standardised Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) questionnaire (July–October 2022). Nine individuals with lived experience of cancer contributed to the project and are referred to as codesigners. Results. The codesigners valued the potential importance of a tool that can be used by the patients and carers if they want specific information about cancer investigations, diagnosis, and treatment. The ability to select what they need as opposed to long leaflets and generating their own questions for the healthcare providers were highlighted as important aspects of improving patient care. The tool was collectively designed to provide clear definitions of the cancer care pathway and easily accessible links from trusted resources and includes practical information to minimise the burden that can be experienced from preparation for appointments and tests. Beta testing results with a small sample of potential users including patients, carers, and healthcare providers (n = 23) showed high acceptability of the guide (range = 7–35, mean = 28.52, and standard deviation = 3.88) based on the TFA questionnaire. Conclusion. A cancer pathway support tool called "Your Cancer Pathway Support Guide (YCPSG)" was developed as a result of an iterative codesign process aiming to improve patient experience and outcomes for people referred on a suspected cancer pathway or who have been diagnosed with cancer. The tool provides information and support in both digital and PDF formats. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential impact of "Your Cancer Pathway Support Guide" on patient outcomes and experience and the wider system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrating digital dietary assessment within dietetic care could save time and reduce costs, at the same time as increasing patient engagement. The present study explores the feasibility of implementing a web‐based dietary assessment tool, myfood24 (https://www.myfood24.org), into routine healthcare. Methods: This mixed methods feasibility study recruited dietitians and patients from a National Health Service (NHS) hospital outpatient setting. Patients completed and shared three online 24‐h dietary recalls in advance, which were used as a dietary assessment by dietitians. Recruitment data were collected and questionnaires on technology, usability, and acceptability were completed. Patient interviews and focus groups with dietitians were conducted. Results: Eleven dietitians working in allergy, bariatrics, diabetes, oncology, general, renal, infectious diseases, and coeliac services took part with 39 patients. Recruitment rates were highest in bariatrics and lowest in renal and oncology. Compared to other studies, completion rates were good, with 29 (74.4%) completing three recalls despite lower technology readiness and software usability scores than in similar studies. Illness and difficulty with technology were reasons for non‐completion. Opportunity to receive nutritional feedback from the tool and share this with a dietitian motivated patients to complete the record accurately. Consultation times were shortened in approximately one‐third of appointments and a higher proportion of time was spent on nutritional education compared to usual practice. However, mean preparation time increased by 13 min per appointment because dietitians found nutritional analysis reports difficult to interpret. Conclusions: It is feasible to introduce a digital dietary assessment tool into NHS dietetic practice. However, further development is needed to ensure that the tool is suitable for healthcare. Key points: This is likely to be the first study in the UK investigating the use of digital dietary assessment in clinical dietetic practice. Seven different clinical specialities were included. Recruitment rates were highest in bariatrics and lowest in oncology and renal where ill health was given as a main reason for non‐participation. Non‐completers had low technology readiness scores, which may suggest this tool could be used to identify individuals who may need more technological support. Dietitians reported that clinic preparation time took longer than usual care, but time was saved in one‐third of consultations and more time was available for patient education. The intervention was moderately acceptable to patients and dietitians, although tailoring the software to clinical care and the availability of an app would likely improve this further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]