Scoping opinion: Speech and language therapists' views on extending their role to the urgent ear, nose and throat pathway.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, there is increasing pressure on ear, nose and throat (ENT) clinicians and departments, which is anticipated to amplify in the coming months and years due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and other workforce pressures. In the context of a national drive to advance practice of Allied Health Professionals to address some key challenges facing the National Health Service, we explored whether UK speech and language therapists (SLTs) felt it is possible to utilize and extend their existing skills to patients on the urgent 2-week wait (2ww) ENT pathway. AIMS: To explore SLTs' views of extending their role to work with patients referred on the ENT 2ww pathway. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Two separate focus groups were conducted using nominal group technique to generate and rank benefits and challenges of the proposed extension of role. Participants were invited to take part through Clinical Excellence Networks relevant to head and neck cancer and voice sub-specialties. Participants were competent in performing nasendscopy in at least a highly specialist role in voice or head and neck subspecialties. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Nine SLTs from England, Wales and Northern Ireland attended two focus groups. All were employed in band 8 roles in head and neck and/or voice. Eight were competent to Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists' scoping level 3. Important benefits of the proposed novel service delivery model were generated and ranked by participants, with both groups identifying improved quality and efficiency of service for patients among the most important. Disadvantages were then generated and ranked across the two groups with potential for misdiagnosis ranked as the most important by both. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Participants responded that extending the SLT role into assessment of 2ww patients would provide benefits for quality of care, healthcare efficiency and the SLT workforce. The identified disadvantages require addressing if the proposed SLT-led model of service delivery is piloted in the UK. These include practical matters such as referral and prescribing rights, alongside wider implications such as support, governance, indemnity, acknowledgement and remuneration for the extended role. Nationally agreed competencies and training for the role are required if this model is to be successful. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject? International studies have shown that SLTs provide safe and effective assessment for routine ENT referrals with dysphonia and dysphagia, reducing ENT waiting lists in the process (Payten et al., 2020; Seabrook et al., 2019). The current study is the first, to the authors' knowledge, to explore views of the profession regarding SLTs' involvement in assessing patients on the more urgent ENT 2ww pathway in the UK, particularly in the primary care setting. What this study adds The greatest benefits of SLTs assessing patients with dysphonia and dysphagia in the 2ww wait clinic were felt to be for patients through prompt, holistic consultation from a clinician with expert knowledge in their disorder. The greatest disadvantages were posed for the workforce such as potential to miss diagnoses, risk of litigation and the increased burden of responsibility. While advantages are clear for service users, the disadvantages must be addressed if such a model is to be implemented. Clinical implications of this study Expert SLTs communicated strongly that SLTs would be a beneficial addition to the 2ww assessment clinic for patients with dysphonia and dysphagia. For this role to be piloted and implemented successfully, their concerns around increased responsibility, potential for litigation and missed diagnoses need to be addressed. If the SLT role is to be extended to the 2ww clinic, robust training, competencies, supervision, guidance and recognition are necessary to support clinicians in this role and protect patients. Some practical matters such as referral and prescription rights also require exploration.

Description and Effectiveness of Communication Partner Training in TBI: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current evidence on communication partner training and its effectiveness on outcomes for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and/or their communication partners. METHODS: Information sources: Systematic searches of 9 databases (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline/EBSCOHOST, PsycINFO, PsycBITE, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and Scopus) from database inception to February 2019. Eligibility criteria: Empirical studies on interventions for adult communication partners where the primary focus of the program (>50%) was on improving communication skills of people with TBI and/or communication partners. Data: Participants, characteristics of the training, outcome measures, and findings. Risk of bias: Standard checklists were used for methodological quality (PEDro, ROBiN-T) and intervention description (TIDieR). Synthesis: Narrative synthesis and effect sizes (Cohen's d) for group-level studies. OUTCOMES: Ten articles (describing 8 studies) met eligibility criteria: 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, and 3 single-case experimental designs. Studies included a total of 258 people with TBI and 328 communication partners; however, all but one study had fewer than 65 participants. Methodological quality varied and intervention description was poor. Three studies in the final synthesis (n = 41 communication partners, n = 36 people with TBI) reported positive intervention effects. Effect sizes in group studies were d = 0.80 to 1.13 for TBI and d = 1.16 to 2.09 for communication partners. CONCLUSIONS: The articles provided encouraging, though limited, evidence for training communication partners. Greater methodological rigor, more clearly described interventions, and consistent use of outcome measures and follow-up after treatment are needed. Further research on this topic is warranted.

Communication partner training in traumatic brain injury: a UK survey of Speech and Language Therapists' clinical practice.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical practice of communication partner training by Speech and Language Therapists for people with traumatic brain injury in the UK. STUDY DESIGN: Online 97-item survey which addressed the practice of training both familiar and unfamiliar communication partners, and barriers and facilitators to implementation informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. PARTICIPANTS: 169 Speech and Language Therapists from private and public settings in the UK. RESULTS: While 96% reported training familiar communication partners, only 58% reported training unfamiliar communication partners. Therapists reported providing communication partner training consistent with best practice 43% of the time. Evidence-based published programmes were used by 13.8% and 19.9% of participants for training familiar and unfamiliar partners, respectively. Therapists reported using outcomes for familiar and unfamiliar communication partners 83% and 78% of the time. The most frequently reported barrier was lack of behavioral regulation (e.g., planning). Most frequent perceived facilitators were clinicians wanting to deliver communication partner training and that training was part of therapists' professional role (social professional role and identity). CONCLUSIONS: Therapists were motivated to deliver communication partner training but reduced capability affected implementation. Further support to clinicians on outcome measurement with materials to develop workplace systems to monitor implementation is needed.