Applications of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework to Support the Process of Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia.

PURPOSE: To establish the extent to which person-centered processes are integrated in assessment procedures, the Relationship, Assessment, Inclusion, Support, Evolve (R.A.I.S.E.) Assessment framework was used to evaluate measures that are typically used when assessing people living with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). METHOD: Forty-five assessment tools were evaluated through the lens of the five R.A.I.S.E. principles: building the client-clinician Relationship, Assessment choices, Including the client and care partners, providing Support, and Evolving procedures to match client capability and progression. The principles were operationalized as questions for raters to evaluate whether a measure met this aspect of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework. RESULTS: Ten measures commonly used in the assessment of people living with PPA met all R.A.I.S.E. principles. These measures centered upon the elicitation of naturalistic discourse, conversation, client self-report, and clinician ratings. Thirteen measures did not meet any of the criteria, and represented standardized evaluation procedures do not provide the opportunity to connect to the client, elicit or provide feedback or support, nor to adapt in response to need or performance. CONCLUSIONS: Whether using standardized or informal assessment tools, a relational and qualitative approach to providing assessment is paramount to promote client success and therapeutic engagement. We provide guidance through the R.A.I.S.E. framework on practices to cultivate person-centered processes of assessment in the care of people living with PPA.

The landscape of inequalities in dementia across Europe: First insights from the INTERDEM taskforce.

BACKGROUND: Getting a diagnosis of dementia does not equate to equitable access to care. People with dementia and unpaid carers face many barriers to care, which can vary within, and across, different countries and cultures. With little evidence across different countries, the aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the different and similar types of inequalities in dementia across Europe, and provide recommendations for addressing these. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey with INTERDEM and INTERDEM Academy members across Europe, and with members of Alzheimer Europe's European Working Group of People with Dementia and Carers in February and March 2023. Members were asked about whether inequalities in dementia care existed within their country; if yes, to highlight three key inequalities. Responses on barriers were coded into groups, and frequencies of inequalities were calculated. Highlighted inequalities were discussed and prioritised at face-to-face and virtual consensus meetings in England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland, involving people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers, and non-profit organisations. RESULTS: Forty-nine academics, PhD students, people with dementia and unpaid carers from 10 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Malta, Netherlands, UK) completed the survey. The most frequently identified inequalities focused on unawareness and lack of information, higher level system issues (i.e. lack of communication among care professionals), lack of service suitability, and stigma. Other barriers included workforce training and knowledge, financial costs, culture and language, lack of single-point-of-contact person, age, and living location/postcode lottery. There was general consensus among people living dementia and care providers of unawareness as a key barrier in different European countries, with varied priorities in Ireland depending on geographical location. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a first insight on dementia inequalities across Europe, generate cross-country learnings on how to address these inequalities in dementia, and can underpin further solution-focused research that informs policy and key decision makers to implement changes.

"Please Don't Assess Him to Destruction": The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework for Primary Progressive Aphasia.

PURPOSE: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) assess people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) through measurements of speech, language, communication, and well-being, with the aims of identifying challenges and strengths, monitoring change, and informing treatment directions and supports. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to highlight the necessity for person-centered assessment specific to PPA and to conceptualize a framework that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of assessment for this population. In this framework, the unique challenges posed by a diagnosis of PPA are addressed with the aim to provide practical guidance for clinicians and to support reflection on current practices. METHOD: In clinical and research practice, assessment of people with PPA requires an ever-evolving approach that is centered on the client. In this clinical focus article, a discussion-based consensus process was used to synthesize authentic longitudinal experiences of people with PPA to explore assessment approaches, tools, and philosophies. RESULTS: This analysis of person-centered assessment identifies seven essential components of assessment in PPA that set the foundation for the five steps of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework. These components each contribute to a clear definition of assessment that reveals clients' competencies with a strengths-based focus; prioritizes the reciprocity of benefits; promotes dynamic assessment; and recognizes the complexity, evolution of assessment over time, and advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical focus article takes a novel look at assessment in PPA by stepping away from assessment practices that focus on revealing deficits and decline and, instead, provides practical recommendations through the conceptualization of a PPA-specific assessment framework. The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework is grounded in principles of uplifting clients through person-centered assessment, keeps pace with best practice in PPA intervention, and contributes to a supportive experience for clients and families in the face of a progressive diagnosis over time.

Translating Ultrasound into Clinical Practice for the Assessment of Swallowing and Laryngeal Function: A Speech and Language Pathology-Led Consensus Study.

Ultrasound (US) has an emerging evidence base for the assessment of swallowing and laryngeal function. Accessibility and technological advances support the use of US as a clinical assessment tool; however, there is insufficient evidence to support its translation into clinical practice. This study aimed to establish consensus on the priorities for translation of US into clinical practice for the assessment of swallowing and laryngeal function. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used as a formal method of consensus development. Clinicians and academics, all members of an international US working group, were invited to participate in the study. Two NGT meetings were held, where participants silently generated and then shared ideas. Participants anonymously ranked items. Rankings were aggregated before participants re-ranked items in order of priority. Discussions regarding rankings were recorded and transcribed to inform analysis. Member-checking with participants informed the final analysis. Participants (n = 15) were speech and language pathologists, physiotherapists and sonographers representing six countries. Fifteen items were identified and prioritised 1-13 (including two equally ranked items). Reliability, validity and normative data emerged as key areas for research while development of training protocols and engagement with stakeholders were considered vital to progressing US into practice. Analysis revealed common themes that might be addressed together in research, in addition to the ranked priority. A measured approach to the translation of US into clinical practice will enable effective implementation of this tool. Priorities may evolve as clinical and professional contexts shift, but this study provides a framework to advance research and clinical practice in this field.

Speech and language therapy for primary progressive aphasia: Referral patterns and barriers to service provision across the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent of UK speech and language therapy engagement in assessment and management of primary progressive aphasia, determine the factors contributing to any shortfall and explore a gap in the research literature on current speech and language therapy practices with people with primary progressive aphasia. METHODS: A 37-item, pilot-tested survey was distributed electronically via clinical networks and through the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Survey items included questions on intervention approaches, referral numbers and demographics, referral sources and access to services. RESULTS: One hundred and five speech and language therapists completed the survey. Over the previous 24 months, respondents reported seeing a total of 353 people with primary progressive aphasia (an average of 3.27 per speech and language therapist). Neurologists were the most commonly reported referrers to speech and language therapy (22.5%). Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported that people with primary progressive aphasia experienced barriers to accessing speech and language therapy. Key barriers were a lack of referrer awareness of a speech and language therapist's role, and restrictive eligibility criteria for services. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted inequities in access to speech and language therapy for people with primary progressive aphasia. The medical and speech and language therapy professions need to develop appropriate care pathways for people with primary progressive aphasia. Speech and language therapists have a duty to develop a relevant evidence base for speech and language interventions for people with primary progressive aphasia.