BackgroundCommunication and swallowing disorders are a common consequence of stroke. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been created to assist health professionals to put research evidence into clinical practice and can improve stroke care outcomes. However, CPGs are often not successfully implemented in clinical practice and research is needed to explore the factors that influence speech pathologists’ implementation of stroke CPGs. This study aimed to describe speech pathologists’ experiences and current use of guidelines, and to identify what factors influence speech pathologists’ implementation of stroke CPGs.MethodsSpeech pathologists working in stroke rehabilitation who had used a stroke CPG were invited to complete a 39-item online survey. Content analysis and descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.Results320 participants from all states and territories of Australia were surveyed. Almost all speech pathologists had used a stroke CPG and had found the guideline “somewhat useful” or “very useful”. Factors that speech pathologists perceived influenced CPG implementation included the: (a) guideline itself, (b) work environment, (c) aspects related to the speech pathologist themselves, (d) patient characteristics, and (e) types of implementation strategies provided.ConclusionsThere are many different factors that can influence speech pathologists’ implementation of CPGs. The factors that influenced the implementation of CPGs can be understood in terms of knowledge creation and implementation frameworks. Speech pathologists should continue to adapt the stroke CPG to their local work environment and evaluate their use. To enhance guideline implementation, they may benefit from a combination of educational meetings and resources, outreach visits, support from senior colleagues, and audit and feedback strategies.

In most Western nations, stroke remains the single greatest cause of disability, including communication and swallowing disabilities. Although adherence to stroke clinical practice guidelines improves stroke patient outcomes, guidelines continue to be underutilised, and the reasons for this are not well understood. This is the first in-depth qualitative study identifying the complex barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation as experienced by speech pathologists in stroke care. Suggested implementation strategies include local monitoring of guideline implementation (e.g. team meetings, audits), increasing collaboration on implementation projects (e.g. managerial involvement, networking), and seeking speech pathologist input into guideline development.

Background and purposeAccurate aphasia diagnosis is important in stroke care. A wide range of language tests are available and include informal assessments, tests developed by healthcare institutions and commercially published tests available for purchase in pre-packaged kits. The psychometrics of these tests are often reported online or within the purchased test manuals, not the peer-reviewed literature, therefore the diagnostic capabilities of these measures have not been systematically evaluated. This review aimed to identify both commercial and non-commercial language tests and tests used in stroke care and to examine the diagnostic capabilities of all identified measures in diagnosing aphasia in stroke populations.MethodsLanguage tests were identified through a systematic search of 161 publisher databases, professional and resource websites and language tests reported to be used in stroke care. Two independent reviewers evaluated test manuals or associated resources for cohort or cross-sectional studies reporting the tests’ diagnostic capabilities (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios or diagnostic odds ratios) in differentiating aphasic and non-aphasic stroke populations.ResultsFifty-six tests met the study eligibility criteria. Six “non-specialist” brief screening tests reported sensitivity and specificity information, however none of these measures reported to meet the specific diagnostic needs of speech pathologists. The 50 remaining measures either did not report validity data (n = 7); did not compare patient test performance with a comparison group (n = 17); included non-stroke participants within their samples (n = 23) or did not compare stroke patient performance against a language reference standard (n = 3). Diagnostic sensitivity analysis was completed for six speech pathology measures (WAB, PICA, CADL-2, ASHA-FACS, Adult FAVRES and EFA-4), however all studies compared aphasic performance with that of non-stroke healthy controls and were consequently excluded from the review.ConclusionsNo speech pathology test was found which reported diagnostic data for identifying aphasia in stroke populations. A diagnostically validated post-stroke aphasia test is needed.

No abstract

No abstract