Search

Background: When parents bring their child to appointments and then adhere to agreed speech and language therapy (SLT) recommendations, there is the potential to increase the intensity of the intervention, support generalization and improve outcomes. In SLT, however, little is known about factors that may promote attendance or adherence. Studies in other clinical areas such in medicine, psychology and physiotherapy have identified risk factors for non‐attendance or non‐adherence that are multifactorial and variable dependent on, for example, population and intervention. Aims: To identify rates of non‐attendance and non‐adherence, and to identify parent or child factors associated with parent involvement in intervention for children under 5 years of age receiving SLT. Methods: Parents completed questionnaires at two time points assessing the domains of parents' beliefs (problem perceptions, self‐efficacy), personal circumstances (socio‐demographics, family functioning), treatment experience and child factors. Predictors of parent attendance and adherence were identified through multiple regression analyses. Non‐attendance rates were identified via local health records and non‐adherence ascertained using a specific parent‐reported measure within the treatment experience domain. Results: Participants (N = 199) were predominantly mothers, and were ethnically and socio‐economically diverse, speaking a wide range of languages. Their children presented with a range of speech, language communication needs (SLCN). The rate of non‐attendance was 25% and the main predictors of non‐attendance were maternal age, education level and two factors within the parent beliefs domain. This model explained 40% of the variance in attendance. The rate of non‐adherence in this cohort was 26% with parental rating of the importance of a recommendation and self‐efficacy beliefs predicting adherence; this explained 56% of the variance in adherence to SLT recommendations at home. Conclusions & Implications: Our research has provided preliminary evidence of the influence of parents' beliefs, personal circumstances and treatment experiences on their involvement in their child's therapy. Speech and language therapists should consider factors impacting attendance and adherence to treatment and explore parental perceptions of their child's SLCN before embarking on an intervention, a foundation for collaborative practice. A possible limitation of this study is that the levels of attrition in our sample led to generally high measured rates of participation, which should be considered in future studies. Future research should explore adherence in treatments with varying doses, with different types of SLCN or interventions and in different settings. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: It is acknowledged that parent involvement in their child's therapy, such as attending and adhering to recommendations, is important but little is known about the rates of involvement and what factors may be associated with attendance and adherence in SLT. Qualitative research has explored parental involvement suggesting that beliefs about an intervention may be pertinent. Extensive research in other clinical areas suggest multiple and varied factors are influential and further exploration of particular populations and interventions is necessary. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This study identified rates of parental non‐attendance and non‐adherence in a cohort of predominantly mothers of children under the age of 5 years. It is the first study to measure parent adherence in SLT and identify factors that are associated parental adherence to SLT recommendations. It adds to the small body of SLT specific research in understanding risk factors for non‐attendance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights the need for a speech and language therapist to consider and explore parents' perspectives of their child's SLCN as a part of achieving collaboration with a parent in order to achieve the best outcomes. It provides a foundation for further systematic research into parent involvement with the ultimate aim of enhancing outcomes for children with SLCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. Methods: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. Findings: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger‐scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information‐sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. Conclusions: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team‐based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow‐up care. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop and explore the validity of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for adult inpatient diabetes care. Method: 27 in‐depth interviews were conducted to inform the development of the 42‐item PREM which was cognitively tested with 10 people. A refined 38‐item PREM was piloted with 228 respondents completing a paper (n = 198) or online (n = 30) version. The performance of the PREM was evaluated by exploring (i) uptake/number of responses and (ii) survey validity by investigating whether the PREM data were of adequate quality and delivered useful information. Results: The PREM had low drop‐out or missing data rates suggesting it was appropriately constructed. Analysis of item frequencies and variances, and problem score calculations concluded that questions provided sufficient score differentiation. Conclusions: This new PREM allows for experiences of inpatient diabetes care to be measured, understood and reported on to help identify priority areas for improving care quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National UK guidance makes recommendations for speech and language therapy staffing levels in critical care and rehabilitation settings. Traumatic spinal cord injury patients often require admission primarily to critical care services within a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit but may not receive similar levels of care. Dysphagia and communication difficulties are recognised features of cervical spinal cord injury; however, little is known about access to speech and language therapy services to provide rehabilitation and improve outcomes. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the workforce and clinical practices of speech and language therapy services in eight spinal injury units and four major trauma centres in England through an online survey. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was created with 26 multiple‐choice questions across seven sub‐sections, with options for free‐text comments. These were sent to a named speech and language therapy contact at each of the specified units. Responses were uploaded into Excel for analyses, which included descriptive statistics and analysis of themes. Outcomes & Results: Responses were received from 92% (11/12) speech and language therapy services invited, which included seven out of eight spinal injury units and all four major trauma centres. No units met national staffing recommendations. Staff in spinal injury units provided an average of 27 h per week input to the unit compared to 80 h in a major trauma centre. Despite caseload variations, speech and language range of therapy involvement and prioritisation process were equivalent. Access to instrumental assessment varied, with less use of Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing in spinal injury units despite its clinical value to the spinal cord injury caseload. Conclusions & Implications: Speech and language therapy services delivering post‐acute and long‐term rehabilitation to spinal cord injury patients are limited by their resources and capacity, which restricts the level of therapy delivered to patients. This may have an impact on clinical outcomes for communication and swallowing impairments. Further evidence is needed of the interventions delivered by speech and language therapists and outcomes will be beneficial alongside benchmarking similar services. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: In England, people who sustain a spinal cord injury are admitted to a major trauma centre prior to transfer to a specialist spinal injury unit. Dysphagia and communication impairments are recognised as a complication of cervical spinal cord injury and benefit from speech and language therapy intervention. National recommendations exist for staffing levels, expertise and competencies for speech and language therapists working in critical care and rehabilitation units. What this study adds: This study identified variations in the levels of speech and language therapy staffing, seniority, service delivery and access to instrumental assessments for dysphagia between major trauma centres and spinal injury units. None of the services complied with national staffing recommendations. Clinical implications of this study: Speech and language therapy services in spinal injury units are often available part‐time or have limited access to diagnostic tools which limits the range and intensity of rehabilitation input available. This has clinical implications for outcomes for swallowing and communication as well as long‐term consequences for integrating back into community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]