Search

Background: Competent clinical reasoning forms the foundation for effective and efficient clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and consequent dysphagia management decisions. While the nature of initial CSEs has been evaluated, it remains unclear how new information gathered by speech–language therapists (SLTs) throughout a patient's acute‐care journey is integrated into their initial clinical reasoning and management processes and used to review and revise initial management recommendations. Aims: To understand how SLTs' clinical reasoning and decision‐making regarding dysphagia assessment and management evolve as patients transition through acute hospital care from referral to discharge. Methods & Procedures: A longitudinal, qualitative approach was employed to gather information from two SLTs who managed six patients at a metropolitan acute‐care hospital. A retrospective 'think‐aloud' protocol was utilized to prompt SLTs regarding their clinical reasoning and decision‐making processes during initial and subsequent CSEs and patient interactions. Three types of concept maps were created based on these interviews: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. All concept maps were evaluated regarding their overall structure, facts gathered, types of reasoning engaged in (inductive versus deductive), types of hypotheses generated, and the diagnosis and management recommendations made following initial CSE and during subsequent dysphagia management. Outcomes & Results: Initial CSEs involved a rich process of fact‐gathering, that was predominantly led by inductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) and some application of deductive reasoning (hypothesis testing), with the primary aims of determining the presence of dysphagia and identifying the safest diet and fluid recommendations. During follow‐up assessments, SLTs engaged in increasingly more deductive testing of initial hypotheses, including fact‐gathering aimed at determining the tolerance of current diet and fluid recommendations or the suitability for diet and/or fluid upgrade and less inductive reasoning. Consistent with this aim, SLTs' hypotheses were focused primarily on airway protection and medical status during the follow‐up phase. Overall, both initial and follow‐up swallowing assessments were targeted primarily at identifying suitable management recommendations, and less so on identifying and formulating diagnoses. None of the patients presented with adverse respiratory and/or swallowing outcomes during admission and following discharge from speech pathology. Conclusions & Implications: Swallowing assessment and management across the acute‐care journey was observed as a high‐quality, patient‐centred process characterized by iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning. This approach appears to maximize efficiency without compromising the quality of care. The outcomes of this research encourage further investigation and translation to tertiary and post‐professional education contexts as a clear understanding of the processes involved in reaching diagnoses and management recommendations can inform career‐long refinement of clinical skills. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: SLTs' clinical reasoning processes during initial CSE employ iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning, reflecting a patient‐centred assessment process. To date it is unknown how SLTs engage in clinical reasoning during follow‐up assessments of swallowing function, how they assess the appropriateness of initial management recommendations and how this relates to patient outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: Our longitudinal evaluation of clinical reasoning and decision‐making patterns related to swallowing management in acute care demonstrated that SLTs tailored their processes to each patient's presentation. There was an emphasis on monitoring the suitability of the initial management recommendations and the potential for upgrade of diet or compensatory swallowing strategies. The iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning reflect efficient decision‐making processes that maintain high‐quality clinical care within the acute environment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Employing efficient and high‐quality clinical reasoning is a hallmark of good dysphagia practice in maximizing positive patient outcomes. Developing approaches to understanding and making explicit clinical reasoning processes of experienced clinicians may assist SLTs of all developmental stages to provide high standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with depressive symptoms often experience changes in physical activity and lifestyle factors. Despite the benefits of exercise, mental health clinicians often do not refer for or prescribe exercise as part of traditionally accepted models of care for consumers with depression and anxiety. The aims were to investigate: (i) mental health clinicians' understanding of the relationship between exercise and mental health, (ii) if and how exercise is used by mental health clinicians in treatment for depression and anxiety, and (iii) the barriers to prescription of exercise. A descriptive qualitative method was used, and data were collected via individual semi‐structured interviews. Ten mental health clinicians with varying backgrounds participated in this study. The data driven inductive analysis of participants views identified three themes: (i) knowing and not knowing, (ii) consumer comorbidities – the risk and benefit dilemma, and (iii) protecting vulnerable consumers. Enhancing clinicians' knowledge of the beneficial role of exercise in treatment for consumers' experiencing depression and anxiety is an important step. Mental health services can support integration of exercise by implementing policies and training for staff to support exercise prescription, and the role and referral of exercise and physical activity specialists, as part of routine care to improve clinical outcomes for consumers. Additional considerations should be given to fiscal support to access exercise as an adjunct therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Following 2016 legislation permitting limited access to cannabis for research and medicinal purposes, the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of medicinal cannabis (MC) on symptom burden relief in cancer contexts has increased in Australia. This study aimed to understand the perceptions, hopes and concerns of people with advanced cancer regarding the future availability and regulation of MC in Australia. Methods: This qualitative study draws on semistructured interviews conducted between February 2019 and October 2020 in Brisbane, Australia, as part of an MC RCT substudy. Interviews were undertaken on 48 patients with advanced cancer in palliative care eligible to participate in an MC trial (n = 26 participated in an RCT; n = 2 participated in a pilot study; n = 20 declined). Interviews included a discussion of patients' decision‐making regarding trial participation, concerns about MC and perceptions of future availability, including cost. Transcribed interviews were analysed inductively and abductively, informed by constructivist thematic analysis conventions. Results: Overall, participants supported making MC legally accessible as a prescription‐only medication. Fear of financial toxicity, however, compromised this pathway. Steep posttrial costs of accessing MC prompted several people to decline trial participation, and others to predict—if found effective—that many would either access MC through alternative pathways or reduce their prescribed dosage to enable affordable access. Conclusions: These findings suggest that—despite a relatively robust universal healthcare system—Australians are potentially vulnerable to and fearful of financial toxicity. Prevalent in the United States, financial toxicity occurs when disadvantaged cancer patients access necessary but expensive medications with lasting consequences: bankruptcy, ongoing anxiety and cancer worry. Interview transcripts indicate that financial fears—and the systems sustaining them—may pose a threat to RCT completion and to equitable access to legal MC. Such findings support calls for embedding qualitative substudies and community partnerships within RCTs, while also suggesting the importance of subsidisation to overcoming injustices. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory committee informed RCT design. This qualitative substudy foregrounds patients' decision‐making, perceptions and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]