The role of laryngeal hypersensitivity in dysphagia: A scoping review with embedded stakeholder involvement.

BACKGROUND: Based on stakeholder conversations, speech and language therapists have anecdotally observed cases of dysphagia with suspected laryngeal hypersensitivity. These presentations have been coined as 'muscle tension dysphagia' often with concurrent laryngeal sensitivity symptoms. However, the role of laryngeal hypersensitivity in dysphagia is not fully understood. Knowledge user engagement highlights a lack of clarity around diagnosis and investigative approaches, limited clinical guidance and inconsistent practice, which leads to inequity in service delivery and care. AIM: To identify and present the published literature regarding the definitions and clinical identification tools used during the management of laryngeal hypersensitivity related dysphagia. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and EQUATOR PRISMA-ScR guidance. Patient and stakeholder engagement was embedded at each review stage. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CUXYN. A multidatabase search strategy identified literature published between 2012 and 2022. A narrative description was used to report the study findings. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The search identified 2590 citations. The full paper screening was completed on 88 studies, with 17 studies included in data extraction. There was a wide range of terminology and assessment approaches which varied across different clinical settings. The most cited term was 'muscle tension dysphagia'. The most common assessments tools were videofluoroscopy, fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videostroboscopy, predominantly used in speech and language therapy and/or Ear, Nose and Throat settings. Gastroesophageal and respiratory investigations were less frequently cited. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: This review details the current evidence related to the terminology and assessment tools cited in laryngeal hypersensitivity related dysphagia to improve clinician knowledge and understanding. Patient and stakeholder involvement indicated that future research needs to: optimize consensus of terminology, and improve consistent identification methods, service provision and treatment approaches. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This review highlights the lack of consistent terminology across the literature. A wide range of assessment tools report nonspecific positive clinical features and a lack of significant instrumental assessment findings. Patients and stakeholders identify the research priorities should improve clinician awareness, knowledge, guidance and evidence to support patient care. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Swallowing difficulties can occur in adults for a number of different reasons, such as neurological, respiratory or physiological conditions. Swallowing difficulties with no evidence of biomechanical or structural impairment on instrumental assessment and of unknown cause (termed idiopathic functional dysphagia or medically unexplained dysphagia) is a poorly understood phenomenon. More recently, concurrent oropharyngeal dysphagia and laryngeal hypersensitivity and/or muscle tension have been posited as a potential underlying mechanism. What this study adds to the existing knowledge This scoping review contributes to our expanding knowledge of the role of laryngeal hypersensitivity in dysphagia by providing an overview of the current evidence related to the terminology and assessment tools reported in the literature. Embedded patient and stakeholder involvement further deepens real-world insights into the increased referrals for these individuals with increasing uncertainty in how to best assess, manage and support patients. Patients equally have reported that reduced professional awareness and inequalities in service delivery pathways result in poor patient experience and quality of life, and healthcare economic burden. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This scoping review draws our attention to an area of practice which has received little attention in both clinical practice and academic research. First, the study raises awareness of this population and the impact for services, speech and language therapists and clinicians; and second, highlights evidence-practice gaps with seldom consistency in the use of terminology and assessment approaches. The study provides priority research themes to expand our knowledge and understanding, as guided by the literature and patient and stakeholder input.

A retrospective study of patients presenting with speech and language therapy needs within multidisciplinary Long COVID services: A service evaluation describing and comparing two cohorts across two NHS Trusts.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID Syndrome (also known as Long COVID) refers to the multi-system condition affecting individuals following COVID-19 infection. This can include speech and language therapy (SLT) needs, including voice, swallowing, communication and upper airway difficulties. There is limited published literature in this clinical area of practice, particularly for those receiving input from community SLT services. AIMS: To describe and compare demand, typical SLT presentation and service delivery across two National Health Service (NHS) Long COVID multidisciplinary services. Independent retrospective service evaluation was completed for each service. Descriptive statistics were produced and compared across services. This service evaluation followed The Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for cohort studies. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The findings indicated similarities across the two services in SLT service need and demand, clinical presentations and intervention approaches provided within Long COVID services. There were specific differences in the service provision and delivery of intervention in cognitive communication and upper airways subspecialities. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the clinical complexities of SLT needs in individuals with Long COVID and the importance for an appropriately skilled and supported workforce within effective multidisciplinary teams. We call for consensus on SLT practices and a consistent and standardized approach to evaluation for SLT needs in Long COVID. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject SLT needs, including voice, swallowing, communication and upper airway difficulties, are present in individuals presenting with Long COVID, both in those who were or were not hospitalized. SLTs are seeing such individuals in a variety of settings, including community services and Long COVID multidisciplinary teams. There is minimal evidence of the clinical presentations and interventions provided to individuals with SLT needs compared across Long COVID services. What this study adds to existing knowledge This study compares two NHS Long COVID services providing a SLT service pathway. It highlights the similarities and differences in service demand and capacity, patient presentation, and SLT intervention to make suggestions for future practice consideration and priority evaluation. Expert consensus among SLT clinicians is a priority to ensure clinicians are delivering consistent and equitable care for patients, while new evidence and data emerge. A consistent and standardized approach to data collection and outcome measures is essential to ensure future research captures the impact and value of SLT input with individuals with Long COVID. What are the clinical implications of this work? The complexities and multifactorial SLT needs of individual with Long COVID call for appropriate SLT staffing provision, skill and training to fulfil the needs of this population. Speech and language therapists should be integrated with multidisciplinary Long COVID services to provide holistic care for patients and to support the professionals working with individuals with post-COVID voice, swallowing, communication and upper airway symptoms.

Allied health professional research engagement and impact on healthcare performance: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence suggests that clinician and organization engagement in research can improve healthcare processes of care and outcomes. However, current evidence has considered the relationship across all healthcare professions collectively. With the increase in allied health clinical academic and research activity, it is imperative for healthcare organizations, leaders and managers to understand engagement in research within these specific clinical fields. This systematic review aims to identify the effect of engagement in research by allied health professionals (AHPs) and organizations on healthcare performance. METHODS: This systematic review has a two-stage search strategy. The first stage will be to screen a previous systematic review examining the effectiveness of engagement in research in health and social care to identify relevant papers published pre-2012. The search strategy used in the previous review will then be rerun, but with a specific focus on allied health. This multi-database search will identify publications from 2012 to date. Only studies that assessed the effectiveness of allied health engagement in research will be included. All stages of the review will be conducted by two reviewers independently, plus documented discussions with the wider research team when discrepancies occur. This systematic review protocol follows the EQUATOR reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P). DISCUSSION: The findings of this review will make a significant contribution to the evidence base around the effect of allied health engagement in research on healthcare performance. It will provide insights for clinicians and managers looking to understand the consequences of developing AHP research capability and capacity. The findings of this review will also aim to make recommendations for future evaluation approaches for engagement in research interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021253461. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject This study will provide valuable evidence for professionals and policymakers seeking to understand engagement in research in the allied health disciplines. Where supported by the data, there may be recommendations for future research regarding specific variables to be considered when planning and evaluating engagement in research in allied health practice. What this paper adds to existing knowledge A previous systematic review identified a positive association between clinician and organization engagement in research and improved processes of care and health outcomes. The reviews' findings have been used as a justification for clinicians and organizations to increase research capacity. That review evaluated literature published before 2012 and the studies that were identified predominantly reported on engagement in research by medics and nurses. An updated review is now required to include research published since 2012. This review will specifically focus on the effect of engagement in research within allied health disciplines. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Research activity among AHPs is gaining momentum. Given this growth in AHP research activity and the rise in dedicated clinical academic roles, a contemporary review to identify the specific effect of AHP engagement in research on healthcare performance is prudent. The findings will inform clinicians, clinical managers and leaders of the potential impact of research activities by AHP clinicians and organizations. This will support the planning and development of initiatives focused on research capacity, capability and culture within allied health.

Dipping your toes into research: experiencing the transition from pure clinical work to combining clinical and research roles.

Sophie Chalmers is a clinical academic and registered allied health professional working in collaboration with an NHS Trust and Higher Education Institution to enhance research capacity building across alied health professional teams in Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, with support from the University of Central Lancashire. Sophie describes her experience of transitioning from a full-time clinician to dipping her toes into research through a 2-year research secondment.