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.

Do social determinants influence post-stroke aphasia outcomes? A scoping review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review on five individual social determinants of health (SDOHs): gender, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and social support, in relation to post-stroke aphasia outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search across five databases was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2022. Twenty-five studies (3363 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Data on SDOHs and aphasia outcomes were extracted and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty studies provide information on SDOH and aphasia recovery outcomes. Five studies provide insights on SDOH and response to aphasia intervention. Research on SDOH and aphasia recovery has predominantly focussed solely on language outcomes (14 studies), with less research on the role of SDOH on activity, participation, and quality of life outcomes (6 studies). There is no evidence to support a role for gender or education on language outcomes in the first 3 months post stroke. SDOHs may influence aphasia outcomes at or beyond 12 months post onset. CONCLUSIONS: Research on SDOHs and aphasia outcomes is in its infancy. Given SDOHs are modifiable and operate over a lifetime, and aphasia is a chronic condition, there is a pressing need to understand the role of SDOHs on aphasia outcomes in the long term.

Research on the role of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and aphasia outcomes is in its infancy.The role of SDoHs has been mainly investigated in relation to language outcomes.Little is known about the SDoHs on activity, participation, and quality of life outcomes.Rehabilitation professionals should consider the potential influence of individual SDoHs such as gender, education, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and social support on a person's access to aphasia services and aphasia outcomes long term.

The Consequences of the Consequences: The Impact of the Environment on People With Aphasia Over Time.

Understanding the impact of the environment on the participation of people with aphasia depends on one's perspective. A long-term perspective provides a unique insight into the myriad of ways in which the environment can influence the participation of people living with aphasia over decades. In this article, the authors present the real-life story of "Hank," who has lived with aphasia for more than 15 years. The authors consider how 2 different conceptual frameworks-the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and the Social Determinants of Health-account for Hank's experience. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is useful to conceptualize the range of factors that influence living with aphasia at a particular point in time. In contrast, the Social Determinants of Health is useful to conceptualize the cumulative impact of living with aphasia on long-term health and well-being. Viewing aphasia as a social condition that impacts social determinants of health has potentially wide ranging implications for service design and delivery and the role of speech-language pathologists.

'That doesn't translate': the role of evidence-based practice in disempowering speech pathologists in acute aphasia management.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-practice gap has been identified in current acute aphasia management practice, with the provision of services to people with aphasia in the acute hospital widely considered in the literature to be inconsistent with best-practice recommendations. The reasons for this evidence-practice gap are unclear; however, speech pathologists practising in this setting have articulated a sense of dissonance regarding their limited service provision to this population. A clearer understanding of why this evidence-practice gap exists is essential in order to support and promote evidence-based approaches to the care of people with aphasia in acute care settings. AIMS: To provide an understanding of speech pathologists' conceptualization of evidence-based practice for acute post-stroke aphasia, and its implementation. METHODS & PROCEDURES: This study adopted a phenomenological approach, underpinned by a social constructivist paradigm. In-depth interviews were conducted with 14 Australian speech pathologists, recruited using a purposive sampling technique. An inductive thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A single, overarching theme emerged from the data. Speech pathologists demonstrated a sense of disempowerment as a result of their relationship with evidence-based practice for acute aphasia management. Three subthemes contributed to this theme. The first described a restricted conceptualization of evidence-based practice. The second revealed speech pathologists' strained relationships with the research literature. The third elucidated a sense of professional unease over their perceived inability to enact evidence-based clinical recommendations, despite their desire to do so. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Speech pathologists identified a current knowledge-practice gap in their management of aphasia in acute hospital settings. Speech pathologists place significant emphasis on the research evidence; however, their engagement with the research is limited, in part because it is perceived to lack clinical utility. A sense of professional dissonance arises from the conflict between a desire to provide best practice and the perceived barriers to implementing evidence-based recommendations clinically, resulting in evidence-based practice becoming a disempowering concept for some.

Creating communicatively accessible healthcare environments: perceptions of speech-language pathologists.

There is a growing body of research that indicates that a person with a communication disability communicates and participates more effectively given a communicatively accessible environment. If this research is to be translated into practice then one needs to determine who will take on the role of creating communicatively accessible environments. This research adopted a qualitative methodology to explore the perceptions of speech-language pathologists about working to create communicatively accessible healthcare settings. Fifteen speech-language pathologists in three focus groups participated in this research. The focus group discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically. Thematic analysis indicated that speech-language pathologists believe there are four main benefits in creating communicatively accessible healthcare environments. These are Benefits for all people: Access for all, Benefits for healthcare administrators, Benefits for those wanting to improve communication with patients, and Benefits to the capacity to provide communicatively accessible environments. However, they believe these benefits can only be achieved if; The communication resources are available, Skilled, knowledgeable and supportive healthcare providers are available; and Systems are in place to support a whole-of-hospital approach. This research supports the development of a new role to improve the communicative accessibility of healthcare settings.

Stroke patients communicating their healthcare needs in hospital: a study within the ICF framework.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has identified that many patients admitted into acute hospital stroke units have communication-related impairments such as hearing, vision, speech, language and/or cognitive communicative impairment. However, no research has identified how many patients in acute hospital stroke units have difficulty actually communicating their healthcare needs. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) conceptualizes difficulty communicating about healthcare needs as a type of activity limitation, within the Activity and Participation component. The ICF proposes that activity limitation can be measured in four different ways. AIMS: The first aim of this research was to measure a patient's difficulty communicating his or her healthcare needs, that is, activity limitation, in two of the four ways suggested by the ICF when interacting with healthcare providers. The second aim was to investigate whether communication-related impairments in hearing, vision, speech, language and/or cognitive communicative impairment predict difficulty communicating healthcare needs, measured in these ways. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 65 patients consecutively admitted into two acute hospital stroke units in Melbourne, Australia, who consented to this research participated in this study. Early in their admission participants were screened for hearing, vision, speech, language and cognitive communicative impairment. Participants were also assessed for difficulty communicating about healthcare needs in two ways proposed by the ICF: 'capacity with assistance' and 'performance'. Relationships between communication-related impairment and both capacity with assistance and performance were explored through Spearman's correlations and binary logistic regression. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: A total of 87% of patients had one or more communication-related impairments. Half of the patients (51%) had difficulty communicating their healthcare needs when assessed in terms of capacity with assistance. Slightly more patients (55%) were observed to have difficulty communicating their healthcare needs when assessed in terms of performance. More severe vision, speech, language and cognitive communicative impairment were significantly associated with more severe difficulty communicating healthcare needs. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: About half of the stroke patients admitted into acute hospital stroke units had difficulty communicating their healthcare needs. Patients with more severe communication-related impairments had more severe difficulty communicating their healthcare needs. Future research is needed to understand the other factors that influence communication between people with communication disabilities and their healthcare providers in acute hospital settings.