Search

Objectives: To define effective communication and identify its key elements specific to critically ill patients with an artificial airway. Design: A modified Consensus Development Panel methodology. Setting: International video-conferences. Main outcome measures: Definition of effective communication and it's key elements. Results: Eight experts across four international regions and three professions agreed to form the Consensus Development Panel together with a Chair and one person with lived experience who reviewed the outputs prior to finalisation. ?Communication for critically ill adult patients with an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) is defined as the degree in which a patient can initiate, impart, receive, and understand information, and can range from an ineffective to effective exchange of basic to complex information between the patient and the communication partner(s). Effective communication encompasses seven key elements including: comprehension, quantity, rate, effort, duration, independence, and satisfaction. In critically ill adults, communication is impacted by factors including medical, physical and cognitive status, delirium, fatigue, emotional status, the communication partner and the nature of the ICU environment (e.g., staff wearing personal protective equipment, noisy equipment, bright lights).? The panel agreed that communication occurs on a continuum from ineffective to effective for basic and complex communication. Conclusion: We developed a definition and list of key elements which constitute effective communication for critically ill patients with an artificial airway. These can be used as the basis of standard terminology to support future research on the development of communication-related outcome measurement tools in this population. Implications for clinical practice: This study provides international multi-professional consensus terminology and a definition of effective communication which can be used in clinical practice. This standard definition and key elements of effective communication can be included in our clinical impressions of patient communication, and be used in discussion with the patient themselves, their families and the multi-professional team, to guide care, goal development and intervention.

Background: Effective communication and collaboration in interprofessional teams are fundamental to the provision of high quality and safe healthcare. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of interprofessional, pre–qualifying health professional students engaged in a simulated patient care scenario. Methods: Students from five healthcare disciplines were immersed in a collaborative simulation experience of managing a patient with stroke, from admission to discharge. Three focus groups were used to evaluate students’ experiences. Results: Three key themes emerged from participant narratives: (a) Learning to Speak the Same language: Working Together to Understand the Healthcare Team, (b) Progressing from Uncertainty to Collaborative Practice: Reflecting on Practice and Transition, and (c) Lessons Learned in Developing the Simulation: Barriers and Enablers to Learning. Conclusions: Immersion of healthcare students in interprofessional simulation experiences enhances role understanding, collaborative decision making, and communication skills.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate healthcare providers, caregivers, and patient perspectives on tracheostomy care barriers during COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional anonymous survey SETTING: Global Tracheostomy Collaborative Learning Community METHODS: A 17-item questionnaire was electronically distributed, assessing demographic and occupational data; challenges in ten domains of tracheostomy care; and perceptions regarding knowledge and preparedness for navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 115) were from 20 countries, consisting of patients/caregivers (10.4%) and healthcare professionals (87.0%), including primarily otolaryngologists (20.9%), nurses (24.3%), speech-language pathologists (18.3%), respiratory therapists (11.3%), and other physicians (12.2%). The most common tracheostomy care problem was inability to communicate (33.9%), followed by mucus plugging and wound care. Need for information on how to manage cuffs and initiate speech trials was rated highly by most respondents, along with other technical and knowledge areas. Access to care and disposable supplies were also prominent concerns, reflecting competition between community needs for routine tracheostomy supplies and shortages in intensive care units. Integrated teamwork was reported in 40 to 67% of respondents, depending on geography. Forty percent of respondents reported concern regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), and 70% emphasized proper PPE use. CONCLUSION: While safety concerns, centering on personal protective equipment and pandemic resources are prominent concerns in COVID-19 tracheostomy care, patient-centered concerns must also be prioritized. Communication and speech, adequate supplies, and care standards are critical considerations in tracheostomy. Stakeholders in tracheostomy care can partner to identify creative solutions for delays in restoring communication, supply disruptions, and reduced access to tracheostomy care in both inpatient and community settings.

Objective To identify core practices for workforce management of communication and swallowing functions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive patients within the intensive care unit (ICU). Design A modified Delphi methodology was used, with 3 electronic voting rounds. AGREE II and an adapted COVID-19 survey framework from physiotherapy were used to develop survey statements. Sixty-six statements pertaining to workforce planning and management of communication and swallowing function in the ICU were included. Setting Electronic modified Delphi process. Participants Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) (N=35) from 6 continents representing 12 countries. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome was consensus agreement, defined a priori as ≥70% of participants with a mean Likert score ≥7.0 (11-point scale: 0=strongly disagree, 10=strongly agree). Prioritization rank order of statements in a fourth round was also conducted. Results SLPs with a median of 15 years of ICU experience, working primarily in clinical (54%), academic (29%), or managerial positions (17%), completed all voting rounds. After the third round, 64 statements (97%) met criteria. Rank ordering identified issues of high importance. Conclusions A set of global consensus statements to facilitate planning and delivery of rehabilitative care for patients admitted to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic were agreed by an international expert SLP group. Statements focused on considerations for workforce preparation, resourcing and training, and the management of communication and swallowing functions. These statements support and provide direction for all members of the rehabilitation team to use for patients admitted to the ICU during a global pandemic.

Significant investment in planning and training has occurred across the Australian healthcare sector in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with a primary focus on the medical and nursing workforce. We provide a short summary of a recently published article titled "Surge capacity of Australian intensive care units associated with COVID-19 admissions" in the Medical Journal of Australia and, importantly, highlight a knowledge gap regarding critical care specialised allied health professional (AHP) workforce planning in Australia. The unique skill set provided by critical care specialised AHPs contributes to patient recovery long after the patient leaves the intensive care unit, with management targeted at reducing disability and improving function, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Allied health workforce planning and preparation during COVID-19 must be considered when planning comprehensive and evidence-based patient care. The work by Litton et al. has highlighted the significant lack of available data in relation to staffing of critical care specialised AHPs in Australia, and this needs to be urgently addressed.

Background Heterogeneity within studies examining transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has made it challenging to make clear conclusions on functional outcomes. Infrequent use of instrumental swallow examinations compounds uncertainty surrounding the proposed functional advantage to TORS. Methods A prospective cohort of 49 patients underwent speech and swallowing assessment 12 months following treatment for OPC. Patients were assessed using fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), clinician- and patient-reported outcomes. Participants were matched according to tumor site, T category, and age. Speech and swallowing outcomes were compared for those receiving TORS versus chemoradiation. Results When adjuvant radiotherapy to the primary site could be avoided, TORS demonstrated an advantage for feeding tube duration, secretion severity, penetration/aspiration, M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), and airway protection. Conclusion This explorative study suggests that a treatment philosophy of selecting patients for TORS where adjuvant therapy can be omitted or confined to the neck warrants further evaluation.

OBJECTIVE:To identify core practices for workforce management of communication and swallowing functions in COVID-19 positive patients within the ICU. DESIGN:A modified Delphi methodology was utilized, with 3 electronic voting rounds. AGREE II and an adapted COVID-19 survey framework from physiotherapy were used to develop survey statements. Sixty-six statements pertaining to workforce planning and management of communication and swallowing function in the ICU were included. SETTING:Electronic modified Delphi process. PARTICIPANTS:35 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) from 6 continents representing 12 countries. INTERVENTIONS:Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome was consensus agreement, defined a priori as ≥70% of participants with a mean Likert score ≥7.0 (11-point scale: "0" = strongly disagree, "10" strongly agree). Prioritization rank order of statements in a 4th round was also conducted. RESULTS:SLPs with a median of 15 years ICU experience, working primarily in clinical (54%), in academic (29%) or managerial (17%) positions, completed all voting rounds. After the third round, 64 statements (97%) met criteria. Rank ordering identified issues of high importance. CONCLUSIONS:A set of global consensus statements to facilitate planning and delivery of rehabilitative care for patients admitted to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic were agreed by an international expert SLP group. Statements focus on considerations for workforce preparation, resourcing and training, and the management of communication and swallowing functions. These statements support and provide direction for all members of the rehabilitation team to use for patients admitted to the ICU during a global pandemic.

Background: Pandemics and the large-scale outbreak of infectious disease can significantly impact morbidity and mortality worldwide. The impact on intensive care resources can be significant and often require modification of service delivery, a key element which includes rapid expansion of the critical care workforce. Pandemics are also unpredictable, which necessitates rapid decision-making and action which, in the lack of experience and guidance, may be extremely challenging. Recognising the potential strain on intensive care units (ICUs), particularly on staffing, a working group was formed for the purpose of developing recommendations to support decision-making during rapid service expansion. Methods: The Critical Care Pandemic Staffing Working Party (n = 21), representing nursing, allied health, and medical disciplines, has used a modified consensus approach to provide recommendations to inform multidisciplinary workforce capacity expansion planning in critical care. Results: A total of 60 recommendations have been proposed which reflect general recommendations as well as those specific to maintaining the critical care workforce, expanding the critical care workforce, rostering and allocation of the critical care workforce, nurse-specific recommendations for staffing the ICU, education support and training during ICU surge situations, workforce support, models of care, and de-escalation. Conclusion: These recommendations are provided with the intent that they be used to guide interdisciplinary decision-making, and we suggest that careful consideration is given to the local context to determine which recommendations are most appropriate to implement and how they are prioritised. Ongoing evaluation of recommendation implementation and impact will be necessary, particularly in rapidly changing clinical contexts.

BACKGROUND:Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) with mechanical ventilation can lead to patients experiencing impaired swallowing and communication function. This can negatively affect patient experiences and outcomes. There is increasing research supporting early intervention for swallowing and communication; however, there are no published ICU workforce data to determine patient access. PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to describe national ICU access to speech pathology (SP) services and to describe the nature of this workforce. METHODS:Prospective audit of Australian ICUs with a focussed workforce survey of SP service including workforce demographics, clinical practices, team environments, and training was conducted. Data are described as percentage (%, n) and as median (interquartile range). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic frameworks. RESULTS:SP services were available at 99% (n = 165) of the sites; 62 sites provided workforce data (45% response rate). Seventy-one percent of respondents serviced the ICU ≤10 h per week, with 23% reporting dedicated funding. Almost a third (32%) reported not participating in ICU team activities, and more than half of the sites (56%) did not provide ICU-specific training with resulting varied clinical confidence ratings. Facilitator and barriers both highlighted team working relationships. Facilitator themes were building working relationships, understanding the SP role in the multidisciplinary team, physical presence in the unit, and access to resources. Barrier themes were the multidisciplinary team's understanding of SP roles and lack of presence of SP services in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS:SP services are not standard across Australian ICUs, with variations in confidence, funding, training, and team environments. Further research into the impact of these variations on patient outcomes is needed.