Search

Background: Speech and language therapists (SLTs) use videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) results to manage dysphagia. Yet, in some services only doctors can directly request a VFSS, potentially creating workflow inefficiencies and delaying patient access to VFSS. An alternative model, where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS, is used in many services in the UK and Australia. However, processes for implementing and sustaining this model have not been reported. Aims: To evaluate the implementation of an SLT‐led inpatient VFSS referring model using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ascertain implementation barriers, facilitators and critical sustainability factors. Methods & Procedures: This implementation evaluation examined stakeholder perceptions of implementing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model via interviews of (1) SLTs who treat and refer inpatients for VFSS; (2) doctors who manage and refer inpatients for VFSS; (3) radiologists; and (4) trained VFSS referring SLTs. The CFIR was used to prospectively guide implementation planning, evaluation and outcome reporting, regarding barriers, facilitators and sustainability factors. Outcomes & Results: Implementation facilitators were (1) the advantage of SLT‐led VFSS referring over the standard model (doctors referring), in promoting high‐quality VFSS referrals; (2) compatibility of the model with the SLT skill set; (3) supportive communication networks between staff groups; and (4) engaging stakeholders throughout implementation. Adequate availability of trained VFSS referring SLTs was both a barrier and a facilitator of implementation. It was also a critical sustainability factor, along with ongoing staff education and outcome monitoring. Conclusions & Implications: The CFIR supported systematic evaluation of implementation facilitators and barriers, and adjustment of factors critical for implementing and sustaining the new model. Findings may assist other organizations to establish the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Models where SLTs directly refer patients for VFSS have been described in the literature, with evidence of appropriate referrals and adherence to radiation safety standards. However, the process for establishing and sustaining this referring model has not been published. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study describes the process and outcomes of implementing an SLT‐led VFSS referring model, using the CFIR. A key advantage of the new model that facilitated implementation was the improved quality of VFSS referrals compared with the standard referring model. Important facilitating factors in the environment were the compatibility of the model with SLTs' skillset and supportive communication network between doctors and SLTs. Initially, an implementation barrier was the inadequate availability of trained SLT referrers. Using proactive implementation strategies, more referrers were trained (which was a facilitating factor for implementing and sustaining the model). What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights that successful implementation requires more than just an effective model. Features of the environment require consideration to minimize barriers and optimize facilitating factors, supported by proactive implementation strategies. Planning and evaluating implementation processes and outcomes using a standardized implementation framework such as CFIR aided understanding of barriers and facilitators for introducing the SLT‐led VFSS referring model. This process may assist other services to implement the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Workplace training for tracheostomy management is currently recognized to be inconsistent and insufficient. A novel approach, using technology-enhanced simulation, may provide a solution to training tracheostomy management skills by providing a consistent, time-efficient, and risk-free learning environment. The current research evaluated clinicians’ tracheostomy skills acquisition after training in a simulated learning environment and explored changes in clinicians' confidence and perceptions after the experience. Method: Forty-two clinicians with no or low levels of tracheostomy skill attended one of six, 1-day simulation courses. The training involved both part–task skill learning and immersive simulated scenarios. To evaluate clinicians’ acquisition of manual skills, performance of core tasks during the scenarios was assessed by independent observers. Questionnaires were used to examine perceived outcomes, benefits, and perceptions of the learning environment at pre-, post-, and 4 months post-training. Results: Only 1 clinician failed to successfully execute all core practical tasks. Clinicians’ confidence increased significantly (p < .05) from pre- to post-workshop and was maintained to 4 months post-workshop across most parameters. All clinicians reported positive perceptions regarding their learning outcomes and learning in a simulated environment. Conclusion: These findings validate the use of simulation as a clinical training medium and support its future use in tracheostomy competency-training pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]