scholarly journals COVID-19 and Speech-Language Pathology Clinical Practice of Voice and Upper Airway Disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Emerald J. Doll ◽  
Maia N. Braden ◽  
Susan L. Thibeault
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Upper Airway ◽  
Viral Transmission ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Language Pathology

Purpose Evaluation and management of voice and upper airway disorders in adults and children, by speech-language pathologists worldwide, have been significantly altered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary to the pathogenic nature of the virus in the respiratory tract and upper airway, it is essential that speech-language pathologists who specialize in these disorders are knowledgeable of current practices to provide evidence-based care while minimizing viral transmission. Understanding how and when SARS-CoV-2 spreads is critical to the development of effective infection prevention within clinical practices. Method We established an evidence-based clinical practice guide for clinicians working with voice and upper airway through a comprehensive evaluation of peer-reviewed journals, non–peer-reviewed manuscripts on preprint servers, national health guidelines, and published and online consensus statements and emerging data. Emphasis was placed on risk mitigation for viral transmission via safe clinical practices, including evaluative procedures, therapy including telehealth, personal protective equipment, room, staffing, and distancing considerations. Results/Conclusions While knowledge relevant to viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly evolving, there is a paucity of literature specific to the evaluation and treatment of voice and upper airway disorders. Within these confines and given the potentially significant high risk of infection secondary to the nature of COVID-19, we summarize current considerations and recommend best practices that maximize risk mitigation whereby ensuring patient and provider safety.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Practice in Speech-Language Pathology: Where Are We Now?

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-198
Author(s):  
Tamar Greenwell ◽  
Bridget Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Perceived Barriers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Career Training ◽  
Language Pathology

Purpose In 2004, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association established its position statement on evidence-based practice (EBP). Since 2008, the Council on Academic Accreditation has required accredited graduate education programs in speech-language pathology to incorporate research methodology and EBP principles into their curricula and clinical practicums. Over the past 15 years, access to EBP resources and employer-led EBP training opportunities have increased. The purpose of this study is to provide an update of how increased exposure to EBP principles affects reported use of EBP and perceived barriers to providing EBP in clinical decision making. Method Three hundred seventeen speech-language pathologists completed an online questionnaire querying their perceptions about EBP, use of EBP in clinical practice, and perceived barriers to incorporating EBP. Participants' responses were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. We used multiple linear regression to examine whether years of practice, degree, EBP exposure during graduate program and clinical fellowship (CF), EBP career training, and average barrier score predicted EBP use. Results Exposure to EBP in graduate school and during the CF, perception of barriers, and EBP career training significantly predicted the use of EBP in clinical practice. Speech-language pathologists identified the three major components of EBP: client preferences, external evidence, and clinical experience as the most frequently turned to sources of EBP. Inadequate time for research and workload/caseload size remain the most significant barriers to EBP implementation. Respondents who indicated time was a barrier were more likely to cite other barriers to implementing EBP. An increase in EBP career training was associated with a decrease in the perception of time as a barrier. Conclusions These findings suggest that explicit training in graduate school and during the CF lays a foundation for EBP principles that is shaped through continued learning opportunities. We documented positive attitudes toward EBP and consistent application of the three components of EBP in clinical practice. Nevertheless, long-standing barriers remain. We suggest that accessible, time-saving resources, a consistent process for posing and answering clinical questions, and on the job support and guidance from employers/organizations are essential to implementing clinical practices that are evidence based. The implications of our findings and suggestions for future research to bridge the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽  
Anny Castilla-Earls ◽  
Jeff Higginbotham
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
School Based ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Ebp Implementation

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Evidence-Based Practice & Practice-Based Evidence Applied to Adult, Medical Speech-Language Pathology

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rik Lemoncello ◽  
Bryan Ness
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Relative Paucity ◽  
Language Pathology

In this paper, we review concepts of evidence-based practice (EBP), and provide a discussion of the current limitations of EBP in terms of a relative paucity of efficacy evidence and the limitations of applying findings from randomized controlled clinical trials to individual clinical decisions. We will offer a complementary model of practice-based evidence (PBE) to encourage clinical scientists to design, implement, and evaluate our own clinical practices with high-quality evidence. We will describe two models for conducting PBE: the multiple baseline single-case experimental design and a clinical case study enhanced with generalization and control data probes. Gathering, analyzing, and sharing high-quality data can offer additional support through PBE to support EBP in speech-language pathology. It is our hope that these EBP and PBE strategies will empower clinical scientists to persevere in the quest for best practices.

scholarly journals Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

Liver Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Yusuke Kawamura ◽  
Kiyoshi Hasegawa ◽  
Ryosuke Tateishi ◽  
Kazuya Kariyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Consensus Statements

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

scholarly journals An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part I: Introduction and General Considerations

2013 ◽  
Vol 2s;16 (2s;4) ◽  
pp. S1-S48
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) re-engineered its definition of clinical guidelines as follows: “clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options.” This new definition departs from a 2-decade old definition from a 1990 IOM report that defined guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.” The revised definition clearly distinguishes between the term “clinical practice guideline” and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. The IOM committee acknowledged that for many clinical domains, high quality evidence was lacking or even nonexistent. Even though the guidelines are important decisionmaking tools, along with expert clinical judgment and patient preference, their value and impact remains variable due to numerous factors. Some of the many factors that impede the development of clinical practice guidelines include bias due to a variety of conflicts of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Consequently, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence, as recently recommended by the IOM. Chronic pain is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon associated with significant economic, social, and health outcomes. Interventional pain management is an emerging specialty facing a disproportionate number of challenges compared to established medical specialties, including the inappropriate utilization of ineffective and unsafe techniques. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 5 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance; dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably; and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payers. Key words: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), comparative effectiveness research (CER), clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, interventional pain management, evidence synthesis, methodological quality assessment, clinical relevance, recommendations.

Don't Blow This Therapy Session!

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory L. Lof ◽  
Dennis Ruscello
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Oral Motor ◽  
Evidence Based Treatments ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Oral Motor Exercises

Blowing exercises and other nonspeech oral motor exercises (NSOMEs) are commonly used therapeutic techniques for children with repaired cleft palate and velopharyngeal inadequacy. Blowing exercises have a long history in the field, dating back to the early days of speech-language pathology when clinicians relied upon expert opinion to influence clinical practice. However, for more than 60 years, NSOMEs such as blowing have been questioned and many empirical studies have been conducted that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of these exercises. This article provides reasons why NSOMEs, mainly blowing, should not be used in therapy. It also traces the history of blowing exercises and then summarizes some of the seminal research articles that show that they do not work. Effective evidence-based treatments for compensatory errors are also reviewed.

Adopting a Conceptual Validity Framework for Testing in Speech-Language Pathology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Olivia Daub ◽  
Barbara Jane Cunningham ◽  
Marlene P. Bagatto ◽  
Andrew M. Johnson ◽  
Elaine Y. Kwok ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
American Educational Research Association ◽  
Psychological Testing ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Association ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Test Use

Purpose Limited evidence-based guidelines for test selection continue to result in inconsistency in test use and interpretation in speech-language pathology. A major barrier is the lack of explicit and consistent adoption of a validity framework by our field. In this viewpoint, we argue that adopting the conceptual validity framework in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014) would support both the development of more meaningful and feasible clinical tests and more appropriate use and interpretation of tests in speech-language pathology. Method We describe and evaluate the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014) validity framework and consider its relevance to speech-language pathology. We describe how the validity framework could be integrated into clinical practice and include examples of how it could be applied to support common clinical decisions. We evaluate the costs and benefits of adopting this framework, from the perspectives of speech-language pathologists, clients, and test developers. Results The Standards' validity framework clarifies complex validity issues by shifting the focus of validity from tests to the decisions speech-language pathologists make based on test results. By focusing on decisions, the framework requires critical evaluation of test use, rather than evaluating tests against sets of criteria. Adopting this framework has the potential for appreciable improvement in the way tests are used and valued across our profession. Conclusions Speech-language pathologists, test developers, and clients will benefit from improved evidence-based assessment practices. It is recommended that regulators, test developers, professional associations, universities, and researchers adopt the framework and endorse it as best practice moving forward. This viewpoint proposes a series of first steps toward supporting uptake of the framework into research and practice.

How to Recruit, Support, and Retain Speech-Language Pathologists in Public Schools

2020 ◽  
pp. 105268462096606
Author(s):  
Kelly Farquharson ◽  
Michelle Therrien ◽  
Andrea Barton-Hulsey ◽  
Ann F. Brandt
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
School Leadership ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Job Openings ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Bureau Of Labor Statistics

Over the past two decades, there has been a persistent shortage of qualified speech-language pathologists (SLPs) across the United States. This shortage is predicted to continue, as data reported by the American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that there will be a 27% increase in job openings through the year 2028. In some states, the shortage has led to service provision from individuals without a background in speech-language pathology and/or without speech-language pathology certification and licensure. Speech and language services that are delivered by unqualified personnel may lead to inadequate time devoted to therapy—either too much, or too little—which is ultimately unethical, illegal, and expensive. However, there is a real issue at hand for school leadership—and that is: How to recruit, support, and retain highly qualified SLPs? In the current tutorial, we will provide evidence-based action steps for how and why to recruit, support, and retain certified and licensed SLPs. Specifically, we discuss the qualifications of the SLP, roles and responsibilities of school-based SLPs, caseload versus workload considerations, various service delivery models, and a review of SLP job satisfaction research. Throughout the tutorial, we will provide concrete and evidence-based ideas for school leadership to consider when recruiting, supporting, and retaining SLPs.

scholarly journals An Evidence-Based Health Care Knowledge Integration System: Assessment Protocol (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Véronique Nabelsi ◽  
Sylvain Croteau
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Services Sociaux ◽  
Medical Recommendations

BACKGROUND The rapid advancements in health care can make it difficult for general physicians and specialists alike to keep their knowledge up to date. In medicine today, there are deficiencies in the application of knowledge translation (KT) in clinical practice. Some medical procedures are not required, and therefore, no value is added to the patient’s care. These unnecessary procedures increase pressures on the health care system’s resources, reduce the quality of care, and expose the patients to stress and to other potential risks. KT tools and better access to medical recommendations can lead to improvements in physicians’ decision-making processes depending on the patient’s specific clinical situation. These tools can provide the physicians with the available options and promote an efficient professional practice. Software for the Evolution of Knowledge in MEDicine (SEKMED) is a technological solution providing access to high-quality evidence, based on just-in-time principles, in the application of medical recommendations for clinical decision-making processes recognized by community members, accreditation bodies, the recommendations from medical specialty societies made available through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, and different standards or accreditive bodies. OBJECTIVE The main objective of this protocol is to assess the usefulness of the SEKMED platform used within a real working clinical practice, specifically the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux de l’Outaouais in Quebec, Canada. To achieve our main objective, 20 emergency physicians from the Hull and Gatineau Hospitals participate in the project as well as 20 patient care unit physicians from the Hull Hospital. In addition, 10 external students or residents studying family medicine from McGill University will also participate in our study. METHODS The project is divided into 4 phases: (1) orientation; (2) data synthesis; (3) develop and validate the recommendations; and (4) implement, monitor, and update the recommendations. These phases will enable us to meet our 6 specific research objectives that aim to measure the integration of recommendations in clinical practices, the before and after improvements in practices, the value attributed by physicians to recommendations, the user’s platform experience, the educational benefits according to medical students, and the organizational benefits according to stakeholders. The knowledge gained during each phase will be applied on an iterative and continuous basis to all other phases over a period of 2 years. RESULTS This project was funded in April 2018 by the Fonds de soutien à l’innovation en santé et en services sociaux for 24 months. Ethics approval has been attained, the study began in June 2018, the data collection will be complete at the end of December 2019, and the data analysis will start in winter 2020. Both major city hospitals in the Outaouais region, Quebec, Canada, have agreed to participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS If results show preliminary efficacy and usability of the system, a large-scale implementation will be conducted. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR DERR1-10.2196/11754

Trends in Clinical Practice Research in ASHA Journals: 2008–2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 1629-1639
Author(s):  
Megan Y. Roberts ◽  
Bailey J. Sone ◽  
Katherine E. Zanzinger ◽  
Marie E. Bloem ◽  
Kara Kulba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Content Areas ◽  
Hearing Research ◽  
The Past ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Future Work

Purpose Despite the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) endorsement of evidence-based practice (EBP) and speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') agreement on the importance of EBP, practicing clinicians report barriers to implementing EBP. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in clinical practice research published in ASHA journals over the past 11 years (2008–2018). Method A total of 2,483 articles from the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ; Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools ; and Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research were extracted for coding. Coders were licensed SLPs who were trained to 80% reliability on classifying the type of research in each article. Clinical practice research articles were further classified as studies on assessment, studies on intervention, and studies that explore the implementation of EBP. Results Clinical practice research comprised the minority of literature published in ASHA journals in the field of speech-language pathology (25%). These articles were composed of assessment (10%), intervention (15%), and implementation (< 1%). These articles were distributed across a variety of primary content areas, with an absence of implementation science for the majority of clinical areas. Conclusions The lack of clinical practice research readily available to practicing SLPs is a barrier to EBP. The results of this study underscore the need for increased clinical practice research. Future work should investigate EBP in the context of clinician–researcher partnerships and increasing the capacity of clinicians to conduct clinical practice research. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12550928

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document