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: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]