Qualitative Exploration of Speech Pathologists' Experiences and Priorities for Aphasia Service Design: Initial Stage of an Experience-Based Co-Design Project to Improve Aphasia Services.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Stroke survivors with aphasia (impaired language/communication) have poor outcomes and gaps in the clinical implementation of best practice contribute to this. Little is known, however, about speech pathologist perspectives on the touchpoints (key moments shaping experiences) in the clinical care pathway that have the greatest impact on service delivery nor how this varies by geographical location. We explored the experiences of speech pathologists who provide aphasia services to establish priorities for improvement and design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the initial experience gathering and priority identification stage of an experience-based co-design (EBCD) project. Speech pathologists were recruited from 21 geographically diverse Hospital and Health Services in Queensland, Australia. Speech pathologists working in acute, rehabilitation and community services shared positive and negative experiences of delivering aphasia care in interviews and focus groups. Experiential data were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to determine touchpoints. Priorities for service design were identified using an adapted nominal group technique. RESULTS: Speech pathologists (n = 62) participated in 16 focus groups and nine interviews and shared 132 experiences of delivering aphasia care. Providing care in teams with poor awareness of the impacts of aphasia was identified as a key challenge, as poor patient-provider communication was perceived to increase risk of adverse outcomes for patients. Speech pathologists identified areas for improvement related to their own professional needs (e.g., greater access to clinical supervision); collaborative health care (e.g., better coordination and interdisciplinary care to increase therapy time); and the service context and environment (e.g., psychological services able to support diverse communication needs). CONCLUSIONS: Speech pathologist delivery of aphasia services could be improved through increased access to clinical supervision, opportunities for peer debriefing and interdisciplinary care. Priorities for service design varied by geographical location and included: education to support care transitions (remote areas), improved referral pathways and service linkage (regional areas) and dedicated aphasia staffing (metropolitan areas). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A consumer advisory committee comprising people with aphasia (n = 3, authors K.M., K.D. and B.A.), their significant others (n = 2, authors J.D. and P.M.), and a Cultural Capability Officer (author G.B.) guided this research. The team: (1) reviewed participant information; (2) co-designed surveys and workshop resources; (3) copresented research outcomes and contributed to publications. Research questions and study design (e.g., analysis methods and assessment measures) were developed by the research team (authors L.A., V.J.P., D.A.C. and S.J.W.).

'A Meaningful Difference, but Not Ultimately the Difference I Would Want': A Mixed-Methods Approach to Explore and Benchmark Clinically Meaningful Changes in Aphasia Recovery.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are used to gauge the effects of treatment. In post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation, benchmarks for meaningful change are needed to support the interpretation of patient outcomes. This study is part of a research programme to establish minimal important change (MIC) values (the smallest change above which patients perceive themselves as importantly changed) for core OMIs. As a first step in this process, the views of people with aphasia and clinicians were explored, and consensus was sought on a threshold for clinically meaningful change. METHODS: Sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Participants included people with post-stroke aphasia and speech pathologists. People with aphasia were purposively sampled based on time post-stroke, age and gender, whereas speech pathologists were sampled according to their work setting (hospital or community). Each participant attended a focus group followed by a consensus workshop with a survey component. Within the focus groups, experiences and methods for measuring meaningful change during aphasia recovery were explored. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. In the consensus workshop, participants voted on thresholds for meaningful change in core outcome constructs of language, communication, emotional well-being and quality of life, using a six-point rating scale (much worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, much improved and completely recovered). Consensus was defined a priori as 70% agreement. Voting results were reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Five people with aphasia (n = 4, > 6 months after stroke; n = 5, < 65 years; n = 3, males) and eight speech pathologists (n = 4, hospital setting; n = 4, community setting) participated in one of four focus groups (duration: 92-112 min). Four themes were identified describing meaningful change as follows: (1) different for every single person; (2) small continuous improvements; (3) measured by progress towards personally relevant goals; and (4) influenced by personal factors. 'Slightly improved' was agreed as the threshold of MIC on the anchor-rating scale (75%-92%) within 6 months of stroke, whereas after 6 months there was a trend towards supporting 'much improved' (36%-66%). CONCLUSION: Our mixed-methods research with people with aphasia and speech pathologists provides novel evidence to inform the definition of MIC in aphasia rehabilitation. Future research will aim to establish MIC values for core OMIs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work is the result of engagement between people with lived experience of post-stroke aphasia, including people with aphasia, family members, clinicians and researchers. Engagement across the research cycle was sought to ensure that the research tasks were acceptable and easily understood by participants and that the outcomes of the study were relevant to the aphasia community. This engagement included the co-development of a plain English summary of the results. Advisors were remunerated in accordance with Health Consumers Queensland guidelines. Interview guides for clinicians were piloted by speech pathologists working in aphasia rehabilitation.

Understanding experiences, unmet needs and priorities related to post-stroke aphasia care: stage one of an experience-based co-design project.

OBJECTIVE: People with post-stroke aphasia (language/communication impairment) and their supporters report mixed satisfaction with stroke and aphasia care. To date, however, their journey of care and the key service interactions that shape their experience have not been comprehensively explored. We aimed to investigate the lived experience of post-stroke aphasia care, across the continuum of care and by geographical location, to establish priorities for service design. DESIGN: This is the first stage of an experience-based co-design study. We purposively sampled people with aphasia (PWA) and significant others (SOs) across 21 hospital and health service sites, community groups and by self-referral. Participants shared experiences of care in online interviews and focus groups. Touchpoints (key moments that shape experience) and unmet needs were identified using qualitative thematic analysis. Priorities for service design were established using an adapted nominal group technique. SETTING: Sites spanned remote, regional and metropolitan areas in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: PWA (n=32; mild=56%; moderate=31%; severe=13%) and SOs (n=30) shared 124 experiences of acute, rehabilitation and community-based care in 23 focus groups and 13 interviews. RESULTS: Both positive and negative healthcare experiences occurred most frequently in hospital settings. Negative experiences regularly related to communication with health professionals, while positive experiences related to the interpersonal qualities of healthcare providers (eg, providing hope) for PWA, or witnessing good rapport between a PWA and their health professional for SOs. To improve services, PWA prioritised communicatively accessible education and information and SOs prioritised access to psychological and peer support. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key aspects of post-stroke aphasia care that shape experience. The needs of PWA and SOs may be better met through health professional training in supported communication, increased service availability in regional and remote areas, communication-accessible hospital environments, increased access to psychological and peer support, and meaningful involvement of SOs in rehabilitation.

Comprehensive quality assessment for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: protocol for a multicentre, mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: People with aphasia following stroke experience disproportionally poor outcomes, yet there is no comprehensive approach to measuring the quality of aphasia services. The Meaningful Evaluation of Aphasia SeRvicES (MEASuRES) minimum dataset was developed in partnership with people with lived experience of aphasia, clinicians and researchers to address this gap. It comprises sociodemographic characteristics, quality indicators, treatment descriptors and outcome measurement instruments. We present a protocol to pilot the MEASuRES minimum dataset in clinical practice, describe the factors that hinder or support implementation and determine meaningful thresholds of clinical change for core outcome measurement instruments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research aims to deliver a comprehensive quality assessment toolkit for poststroke aphasia services in four studies. A multicentre pilot study (study 1) will test the administration of the MEASuRES minimum dataset within five Australian health services. An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation (study 2) will evaluate the performance of the minimum dataset and explore its clinical applicability. A consensus study (study 3) will establish consumer-informed thresholds of meaningful change on core aphasia outcome constructs, which will then be used to establish minimal important change values for corresponding core outcome measurement instruments (study 4). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Studies 1 and 2 have been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12623001313628). Ethics approval has been obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/2023/MNHB/95293) and The University of Queensland (2022/HE001946 and 2023/HE001175). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with relevant stakeholders including healthcare providers, policy-makers, stroke and rehabilitation audit and clinical quality registry custodians, consumer support organisations, and individuals with aphasia and their families.

Using experience-based codesign to coproduce aphasia rehabilitation services: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Aphasia is an impairment of language that occurs in 30%-40% of stroke survivors. This often chronic condition results in poor outcomes for the individual with aphasia and their family. Long-term aphasia management is limited, with few people receiving sufficient services by 6-12 months postonset. We present a protocol for the development of coproduced aphasia service elements. We will use experience-based codesign (EBCD), an approach that enables service users and providers to collaboratively develop services and care pathways. Drawing on the experiences of people with aphasia, their families and clinicians we will establish priorities for the development of new services and later work together to codesign them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research will be coproduced with people with aphasia (n=30-60), their families (n=30-60) and speech pathologists (n=30-60) in Queensland, Australia, using EBCD. A consumer advisory committee will provide oversight and advice throughout the research. In phase 1, we will use semistructured interviews and the nominal group technique to explore experiences and unmet needs in aphasia rehabilitation. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the resulting themes will be prioritised in multistakeholder focus groups. Outcomes of phase 1 will inform future research (phase 2) to codesign services. Financial costs and participant experiences of EBCD will be measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committee approval for phase 1 has been obtained (HREC/2020/QRBW/61368). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journal articles, presented at relevant conferences and, following EBCD suggested best practice, fed back to participants and community members at a celebratory event at completion of the project. The inclusion of service users in all stages of research will facilitate an integrated approach to knowledge translation. A summary of research findings will be made available to participating sites.