The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demands on healthcare with many requiring intubation. Tracheostomy insertion has often been delayed and the enduring effects of this on voice, swallow, and airway outcomes in COVID-19 tracheostomy patients are unknown. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess these outcomes in this patient cohort following hospital discharge.Methods: All COVID-19 patients who had undergone tracheostomy insertion, and were subsequently decannulated, were identified at our institution and followed up 2 months post-discharge. Patient-reported (PROMS) and clinician-reported outcome measures, endoscopic examination, and spirometry were used to assess voice, swallow, and airway outcomes.Results: Forty-one patients were included in the study with a mean age of 56 years and male:female ratio of 28:13. Average duration of endotracheal intubation was 24 days and 63.4% of tracheostomies were performed at day 21 to 35 of intubation. 53.7% had an abnormal GRBAS score and 30% reported abnormal swallow on EAT-10 questionnaire. 81.1% had normal endoscopic examination of the larynx, however, positive endoscopic findings correlated with the patient self-reported VHI-10 (P = .036) and EAT-10 scores (P = .027). 22.5% had spirometric evidence of fixed upper airway obstruction using the Expiratory-Disproportion Index (EDI) and Spearman correlation analysis showed a positive trend between abnormal endoscopic findings and EDI scores over 50 (P < .0001). Conclusion:The preliminary results of this study reveal a high incidence of laryngeal injury among patients who underwent intubation and tracheostomy insertion during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these patients continue to be followed up, the evolution of these complications will be studied.

Background: Ultrasound (US) is not widely used as part of the speech and language therapy (SLT) clinical toolkit. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified interest in US as an alternative to SLT instrumental tools such as the videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and endoscopic evaluation of the larynx (EEL) as a non-invasive, non-aerosol-generating procedure that can be delivered at the bedside to assess swallowing and/or laryngeal function. To establish the appropriacy of routine US use, and in response to a national professional body request for a position statement, a group of expert SLTs conducted a rapid review of the literature. Aim: To explore critically the clinical utility of US as an assessment tool for swallowing and laryngeal function in adults. Methods & Procedures: A rapid review of four databases was completed to identify articles using US to assess swallowing and/or laryngeal function in adults compared with reference tests (VFSS/FEES/EEL/validated outcome measure). Screening was completed according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria and 10% of abstracts were rescreened to assess reliability. Data were extracted from full texts using a predeveloped form. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality ratings. Information from included studies was summarized using narrative synthesis and visual illustration. Outcomes & Results: Ten papers used US to assess swallowing, and 13 to assess laryngeal function. All were peerreviewed primary studies across a range of clinical populations and with a wide geographical spread. Four papers had an overall low risk of bias, but the remaining 19 had at least one domain where risk of bias was judged as high or unclear. Applicability concerns were identified in all papers. The papers that used US to assess swallowing varied widely in terms of the anatomical structures assessed and methodology employed. The papers assessing laryngeal function were more homogenous in their methodology. Sensitivity and specificity data were provided for 12 of the laryngeal function papers with ranges of 64.3-100% and 48.5-100%, respectively. Conclusions & Implications: There is burgeoning evidence to support the use of US as an adjunct to SLT clinical assessment of swallowing and laryngeal function. However, the current literature does not support its use as a

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic and the UK government's subsequent coronavirus action plan have fundamentally impacted on every aspect of healthcare. One area that is severely affected is ear, nose and throat (ENT)/laryngology where speech and language therapists (SLTs) engage in a diverse range of practice with patients with a range of conditions, including voice disorders, airway problems, and head and neck cancers (HNCs). A large majority of these patients are in high‐risk categories, and many specialized clinical practices are vulnerable. In addition, workforce and research issues are challenged in both the immediate context and the future. Aims To discuss the threats and opportunities from the COVID‐19 pandemic for SLTs in ENT/laryngology with specific reference to clinical practice, workforce and research leadership. Methods & Procedures The relevant sections of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) health systems building blocks framework (2007) were used to structure the study. Expert agreement was determined by an iterative process of multiple‐group discussions, the use of all recent relevant policy documentation, and other literature and shared documentation/writing. The final paper was verified and agreed by all authors. Main Contribution The main threats to ENT/laryngology SLT clinical services include increased patient complexity related to COVID‐19 voice and airway problems, delayed HNC diagnosis, reduced access to instrumental procedures and inequitable care provision. The main clinical opportunities include the potential for new modes of service delivery and collaborations, and harnessing SLT expertise in non‐instrumental assessment. There are several workforce issues, including redeployment (and impact on current services), training implications and psychological impact on staff. Workforce opportunities exist for service innovation and potential extended ENT/SLT practice roles. Research is threatened by a reduction in immediate funding calls and high competition. Current research is affected by very limited access to participants and the ability to conduct face‐to‐face and instrumental assessments. However, research opportunities may result in greater collaboration, and changes in service delivery necessitate robust investigation and evaluation. A new national set of research priorities is likely to emerge. Conclusions & Implications The immediate impact of the pandemic has resulted in major disruption to all aspects of clinical delivery, workforce and research for ENT/laryngology SLT. It is unclear when any of these areas will resume operations and whether permanent changes to clinical practice, professional remits and research priorities will follow. However, significant opportunity exists in the post‐COVID era to re‐evaluate current practice, embrace opportunities and evaluate new ways of working.