Search

Introduction/Objective: The objective of the study was to develop an understanding of the perceptions of people with Parkinson's disease and clinical academics on the implementation of a regional interdisciplinary model of care. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. A PD interdisciplinary clinic was conducted in an Australian regional location. As a novel variation, in this clinic, 4 clinical academics consulted simultaneously offering a long, 3-h appointment. Following the clinic, we conducted 2 focus groups with all clinical academics and 6 semi-structured interviews with people with PD and carers. Data were analyzed using Elo & Kyngäs' inductive content analysis approach. Results: An overarching main category namely, "interdisciplinary care proved valuable to regional people with PD and clinical academics," and 3 generic-categories including "identifying interdisciplinary care as a viable option in regional locations," "current care provision is disempowering and burdensome," and "regional residing people with PD and their carers seek locally accessible healthcare with PD skilled clinicians" were identified. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the implementation of interdisciplinary care to regional healthcare systems is valued by clinical academics and people with PD and carers. Further research is required to establish how interdisciplinary care can be implemented in regional Australia and its effects on practice changes, patient outcomes, and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Advancements in genetic testing and analysis have allowed improved identification of the genetic basis of childhood apraxia of speech, a rare speech presentation. This study aimed to understand speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') consideration of incorporation of genetics in clinical practice using a theory-informed qualitative approach. Method: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 pediatric SLPs using a behavior change theory (Theoretical Domains Framework [TDF]) within a case study describing a child with complex co-occurring features, including childhood apraxia of speech. Interviews focused on three stages of the patient journey (prereferral, referral, and postreferral). Interviews were analyzed to identify barriers and enablers to considering incorporation of genetics in current clinical practice. Barriers and enablers were grouped and mapped onto a contextually relevant TDF-coded analysis framework. Results: Barriers were identified across several TDF domains, through all stages of the patient journey. Lack of confidence, relevance, and level of experience were most common prereferral, and connection to and awareness of genetics services and contextual factors were barriers in the referral stage. Perception of professional role, knowledge, and beliefs about effects on families were barriers postreferral. Associated enablers were also identified, including seeing value in genetic diagnosis, support from other health care professionals, supervision, and relationships with genetics services. Conclusions: Results of this qualitative study highlight barriers and enablers to incorporating genetics into speech-language pathology clinical practice. These findings will assist in the development of theory-informed implementation strategies to support SLPs into the future. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24112800 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia in advanced stages are very burdensome for patients. Timely palliative care with strong collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs. The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment and an interprofessional case conference. This qualitative evaluative study explores patients', proxies' and their associates' motivation to participate in the KOPAL-study and views on the (benefits of the) intervention. Methods: We interviewed 13 male and 10 female patients as well as 14 proxies of patients with dementia and six associates of study participants using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis. Results: Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment. They had no expectations concerning potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. The majority of interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs. Conclusion: Our results lead to the conclusion that SPHC nurses can serve as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients' autonomy. GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with patients and collaboratively decide on further actions. Patient participation in the interdisciplinary case conference could be another way to increase the effects of the intervention by empowering patients to not just passively receive the intervention. Trial registration: DRKS00017795 German Clinical Trials Register, 17Nov2021, version 05. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]