A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine.

BACKGROUND: There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. METHODS: Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. RESULTS: Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. CONCLUSIONS: Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.

Swallowing and Communication Management of Tracheostomy and Laryngectomy in the Context of COVID-19: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The care of patients with a surgically modified airway, such as tracheostomy or laryngectomy, represents a challenge for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The objective was to review available publications and practice guidelines on management of tracheostomy and laryngectomy in the context of COVID-19. This study performed a review and synthesis of information available in the PubMed database and from national SLP organizations across 6 countries. OBSERVATIONS: From the search, 22 publications on tracheostomy and 3 referring to laryngectomy were identified. After analysis of titles and abstracts followed by full-text review, 4 publications were identified as presenting guidelines for specific approaches to tracheostomy and were selected; all 3 publications on laryngectomy were selected. The main guidelines on tracheostomy described considerations during management (eg, cuff manipulation, suctioning, valve placement) owing to the increased risk of aerosol generation and transmission during swallowing and communication interventions in this population. Regarding laryngectomy, the guidelines focused on the care and protection of both the professional and the patient, offering recommendations on the management of adverse events and leakage of the tracheoesophageal prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Frequent guideline updates for SLPs are necessary to inform best practice and ensure patient and health care worker protection and safety while providing high-quality care and rehabilitation.

Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Dysphagia in Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2: A Review of the Literature and International Guidelines.

Purpose Speech-language pathologists are playing a crucial role in the assessment and management of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Our goal was to synthesize peer-reviewed literature and association guidelines from around the world regarding dysphagia assessment and management for this specific population. Method A review of publications available in the PubMed database and official guidelines of international groups was performed on May 23, 2020. The information was synthesized and categorized into three content areas for swallowing: clinical evaluation, instrumental assessment, and rehabilitation. Results Five publications were identified in the PubMed database. Following title, abstract, and full-text review, only three publications met inclusion criteria: two reviews and one narrative report. Additionally, 19 international guidelines were reviewed. To assess swallowing, a modified clinical evaluation was recommended and only following a risk assessment. Instrumental assessments were often considered aerosol generating, especially transnasal procedures such as endoscopy and manometry. For this reason, many associations recommended that these examinations be performed only when essential and with appropriate personal protective equipment. Guidelines recommended that intervention should focus on compensatory strategies, including bolus modification, maneuvers/postural changes, and therapeutic exercises that can be conducted with physical distancing. Respiratory training devices were not recommended during rehabilitation. Conclusions International associations have provided extensive guidance regarding the level of risk related to the management of dysphagia in this population. To date, there are no scientific papers offering disease and/or recovery profiling for patients with dysphagia and coronavirus disease 2019. As a result, research in this area is urgently needed.

Strategies for Increasing Knowledge, Communication, and Access to Living Donor Transplantation: an Evidence Review to Inform Patient Education.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inadequate knowledge of the benefits, risks and opportunities for living donation is an important, potentially modifiable barrier to living donor transplantation. We assessed the current state of the evidence regarding strategies to increase knowledge, communication and access to living donor transplantation, as reported in peer-reviewed medical literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Nineteen studies were reviewed, categorized as programs evaluated in randomized controlled trials (8 studies) and programs supported by observational (non-randomized) studies (11 studies). Content extraction demonstrated that comprehensive education about living donation and living donor transplantation involves multiple learners - the transplant candidate, potential living donors, and social support networks - and requires communicating complex information about the risks and benefits of donation, transplantation and alternative therapies to these different audiences. Transplant centers can help transplant patients learn about living donor transplantation through a variety of formats and modalities, including center-based, home-based and remote technology-based education, outreach to dialysis centers, and social media. Evaluation of these strategies and program themes informed a new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) public education brochure. SUMMARY: Increasing transplant candidate knowledge and comfort in talking about living donation and transplantation can reduce educational barriers to pursuit of living donor transplants. Ongoing efforts are needed to develop, refine and disseminate educational programs to help improve transplant access for more patients in need of organ donors.

Living-donor follow-up attitudes and practices in U.S. kidney and liver donor programs.

BACKGROUND: Although U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donation, the submissions have high rates of incomplete or missing data. It is important to understand barriers programs face in collecting follow-up information. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to complete a survey about program attitudes concerning donor follow-up, follow-up practices, and barriers to success. RESULTS: Respondents representing 147 programs (111 with only LKD and 36 with both LKD and LLD) participated. Sixty-eight percent of LKD and 83% of LLD respondents said that achieving follow-up was a high priority. The majority agreed that donors should be followed at least 2 years (61% LKD programs and 73% LLD programs), and sizeable percentages (31% LKD and 37% LLD) endorsed 5 years of follow-up. However, approximately 40% of programs lost contact with more than 75% of their donors by 2 years after donation. Follow-up barriers included donors not wanting to return to the program (87%), out-of-date contact information (73%), and lack of program (54%) or donor (49%) reimbursement for follow-up costs. Whereas 92% of LKD and 96% of LLD programs inform potential donors about follow-up requirements, fewer (67% LKD and 78% LLD) develop plans with donors to achieve follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents agree that donor follow-up is important, but they report difficulty achieving it. Improvements may occur if programs work with donors to develop plans to achieve follow-up, programmatic standards are set for completeness in follow-up data reporting, and sufficient staff resources are available to ensure ongoing post-donation contact.