Search

Background: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. Speech–language pathologists (SLPs) might have negative perceptions of the treatment of children with a CP±L. Aims: To explore how community SLPs perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. Methods & Procedures: A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 62 years, were included in this study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic approach aiming to identify themes driven by the data. Trustworthiness of the data was achieved by including researcher triangulation (involving three researchers with different research backgrounds) and deviant case analysis of two cases. Outcomes & Results: Initial responses demonstrated that the community SLPs were excited and enthusiastic to treat children with a CP±L. Expanding on these initial reports, however, they revealed that their excitement turned into professional self‐doubt and insecurity when confronted with the treatment challenges inherent with this population. To cope with this self‐doubt, they outlined several responsibilities for the cleft team SLPs. They expressed a strong desire to receive confirmation and approval on their treatment practices from more experienced SLPs (i.e., the cleft team SLPs). Their perceptions were dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches were divided in categories as 'right' or 'wrong' and 'good' or 'bad'. Conclusions & Implications: The community SLPs are lacking professional confidence when treating children with a CP±L. They put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. This expectation can perhaps be explained by their fear of making mistakes during therapy preventing treatment progress. If they handle in accordance with the experts' advice, they cannot blame themselves in cases where no treatment progress is seen. Educational programmes need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence (in the search for the most optimal treatment approach for each individual patient) rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Speech disorders in children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP±L) are complex given the magnitude of influencing factors. Providing intervention to eliminate these speech errors is often challenging. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study explored how community SLPs' perceive and experience the provision of speech intervention to children with a CP±L. The perceptions of community SLPs are dominated by a polarized thinking pattern. Treatment approaches are divided into categories as "right" or "wrong" and "good" or "bad". They lack professional confidence when they treat children with a CP±L. The community SLPs put themselves in a subordinate position towards the cleft team SLPs and expect the latter to provide ready‐made answers to problems and questions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Educational programs in speech‐language pathology need to pay more attention to gaining professional confidence rather than merely focusing on competency‐based learning tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A resuscitation plan is a medically authorised order to use or withhold resuscitation interventions. Absence of appropriate resuscitation orders exposes patients to the risk of invasive medical interventions that may be of questionable benefit depending on individual circumstances. Aims: To describe among junior doctors: (i) self‐reported confidence discussing and completing resuscitation plans; (ii) knowledge of resuscitation policy including whether resuscitation plans are legally enforceable and key triggers for completion; and (iii) the factors associated with higher knowledge of triggers for completing resuscitation plans. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey was conducted at five hospitals. Junior doctors on clinical rotation were approached at scheduled training sessions, before or after ward rounds or at change of rotation orientation days and provided with a pen‐and‐paper survey. Results: A total of 118 junior doctors participated. Most felt confident discussing (79%; n = 92) and documenting (87%; n = 102) resuscitation plans with patients. However, only 45% (n = 52) of doctors correctly identified that resuscitation plans are legally enforceable medical orders. On average, doctors correctly identified 6.8 (standard deviation = 1.8) out of 10 triggers for completing a resuscitation plan. Doctors aged >30 years were four times more likely to have high knowledge of triggers for completing resuscitation plans (odds ratio 4.28 (95% confidence interval 1.54–11.89); P = 0.0053). Conclusion: Most junior doctors feel confident discussing and documenting resuscitation plans. There is a need to improve knowledge about legal obligations to follow completed resuscitation plans, and about when resuscitation plans should be completed to ensure they are completed with patients who are most at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current policy in UK health services emphasizes that, where possible, people with intellectual disabilities should access the same services as people without intellectual disabilities. One of the barriers to this is the confidence of clinicians and therapists. In this paper, we report on the development of a scale to describe the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities (the Therapy Confidence Scale-Intellectual Disabilities [TCS-ID]). One-hundred and eighty-one therapists who provided talking therapies but who did not work primarily with people with intellectual disabilities completed the scale; 43 people completed the scale twice for test-retest reliability purposes. One-hundred and seven people also completed a scale of general therapy self-efficacy. The TCS-ID has a single factor structure accounting for 62% of the variance, Cronbach's alpha for the scale is 0.93 and test-retest reliability is 0.83. There are significant differences in confidence based upon participants experience in working with people with intellectual disabilities and their therapeutic orientation, and there is a significant association between the TCS-ID and the General Therapy Self-efficacy Scale. Sixty clinicians working in mainstream mental health services received training on adapting their therapeutic approaches to meet the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. The TCS-ID was used pre-training and post-training and demonstrated a significant increase in confidence for all group. We suggest that the scale has good psychometric properties and can be used to develop an understanding of the impact of training for mainstream therapist in working with people with intellectual disabilities. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message There is increasing emphasis on people with intellectual disabilities receiving services from mainstream mental health services., There is no research describing the experiences and outcomes of people with intellectual disabilities receiving mainstream talking therapy services., The confidence that clinicians have in working with people with intellectual disabilities may be a barrier to them receiving mainstream services., The Therapy Confidence Scale-Intellectual Disabilities is a psychometrically sound scale for measuring the confidence of therapists in working with people with intellectual disabilities and is a useful outcome measure for training clinicians to work with people with intellectual disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There are very few studies that investigate the qualitative experiences of people with a learning disability who have engaged in psychological therapy. Indeed, having a learning disability has traditionally been an exclusion criterion for good quality research about psychological treatments ( Psychotherapy and Learning Disability. Council Report CR116. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004; Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19, 2005 and 5). The current research was developed in response to a clinical psychology service recognizing the need to evaluate their psychological service and, as part of this evaluation, the importance of consulting with service users about their experience of psychological therapies. The overall aim of gaining this feedback would be to improve the service offered and to ensure that people receive the best psychological care. Methods Six service users with a learning disability were interviewed about their experience of individual psychological therapy. The interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results Themes were generated from the interviews which highlighted both positive and negative feedback on the psychological therapy process. The feedback covered areas such as access to therapy, feelings about therapy, preparing for therapy, skill development and collaborative working, accessibility and making therapy fun, challenges to confidentiality, positive feelings towards the therapist, aspects of the therapeutic relationship, therapy being challenging but helpful, and positive outcomes. Conclusions These results have contributed to the evidence base that people with a learning disability are able to meaningfully engage in research and provide essential feedback on the services that they receive. No longer can people be excluded from individual psychological therapy or research just because of their label. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia can be difficult to access in the later stages of stroke recovery, despite evidence of continued improvement with sufficient therapeutic intensity. Computerized aphasia therapy has been reported to be useful for independent language practice, providing new opportunities for continued rehabilitation. The success of this option depends on its acceptability to patients and carers. Aims To investigate factors that affect the acceptability of independent home computerized aphasia therapy practice. Methods & Procedures An acceptability study of computerized therapy was carried out alongside a pilot randomized controlled trial of computer aphasia therapy versus usual care for people more than 6 months post-stroke. Following language assessment and computer exercise prescription by a speech and language therapist, participants practised three times a week for 5 months at home with monthly volunteer support. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 participants who received the intervention and ten carers ( n = 24). Questions from a topic guide were presented and answered using picture, gesture and written support. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Three research SLTs identified and cross-checked themes and subthemes emerging from the data. Outcomes & Results The key themes that emerged were benefits and disadvantages of computerized aphasia therapy, need for help and support, and comparisons with face-to-face therapy. The independence, flexibility and repetition afforded by the computer was viewed as beneficial and the personalized exercises motivated participants to practise. Participants and carers perceived improvements in word-finding and confidence-talking. Computer practice could cause fatigue and interference with other commitments. Support from carers or volunteers for motivation and technical assistance was seen as important. Although some participants preferred face-to-face therapy, using a computer for independent language practice was perceived to be an acceptable alternative. Conclusions & Implications Independent computerized aphasia therapy is acceptable to stroke survivors. Acceptability can be maximized by tailoring exercises to personal interests of the individual, ensuring access to support and giving consideration to fatigue and life style when recommending practice schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Literature regarding the education, training, clinical support and confidence of speech-language therapists (SLTs) working with patients with a tracheostomy is limited; however, it suggests that many clinicians have reduced clinical confidence when managing this complex population, many face role and team challenges practising in this area, and most are seeking more opportunities for professional development and training. Aims: To investigate the education, training, clinical support and confidence of SLTs in the UK who manage patients with a tracheostomy in order to identify current challenges and inform the future clinical training needs of this professional group. Methods & Procedures: Via an online survey, the clinical training, clinical support and confidence of SLTs with more than one year of clinical experience was examined. A total of 106 SLTs from the UK completed the survey. Within the questionnaire, clinicians were also asked to identify if their workplace had a tracheostomy competency training programme (CTP) to allow further exploration of the preparation, clinical support and confidence of respondents with (43% of respondents) and without (32% of respondents) a CTP. Outcomes & Results: Most SLTs (71%) were confident managing patients with a tracheostomy. The majority were accessing professional development and receiving expert support, though many identified specific areas where more support and training was needed. Less than half the group felt up to date with the current evidence. Only 35% of clinicians felt they worked in an optimal team for tracheostomy management, and poor recognition of the role of the SLT in managing dysphagia in patients with a tracheostomy was an issue for many clinicians, particularly on more general care wards. SLTs in workplaces with a CTP were found to have received significantly more expert support, on-the-job training, access to evidence-based practice and were significantly more confident in managing ventilator-assisted patients. Conclusions & Implications: SLTs are eager to access further professional development and training; however, such training needs to target specific areas of need. The significant difference in the preparation, support and confidence of SLTs with CTPs in their workplace highlights potential benefits that can be achieved through workplace training and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]