Professional roles and responsibilities in meeting the needs of children with speech, language and communication needs: joint working between educational psychologists and speech and language therapists

Abstract

There is a large population of children with speech, language and communication needs who have additional special educational needs (SEN). Whilst professional collaboration between education and health professionals is recommended to ensure an integrated delivery of statutory services for this population of children, formal frameworks should be developed for the exchange of information during identification and assessment of needs and planning of intervention strategies. In this study an audit was carried out to examine practical and conceptual issues which might arise in a piloted communication system between educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. Whilst it was found that 62.8% of newly referred children with SEN had some history of co-existing communication and education needs, it was shown that duplication of work exists and communication is onerous. It was also shown that schools were not fully informed about children's needs. Joint commissioning of services is required to facilitate individual practitioners in collaborating to serve the needs of these children.

Supporting children with disabilities at school: implications for the advocate role in professional practice and education

“…The barriers to direct involvement that were identified (e.g. health information infrastructure and privacy legislation) resonate with the existing literature [ 7 , 10 , 66 , 68 ]. Given the structural factors influencing practitioners to advocate indirectly, we suggest that practice guidelines and the education of pediatric rehabilitation practitioners could benefit from open dialogue about the complexities and nuances of advocacy practices in the complex situation of the clinician-out-of-clinical-waters.…”

“…These challenges are well-documented in the literature and are related to the complexities of integrating different policies, systems, agencies, and individuals [ 1 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 ]. The extant literature on integrated systems, or inter-sector working, explores individuals' experiences, perceptions of barriers and facilitators to integrating services, and considers various frameworks and policies for inter-sector collaboration and integration [ 7 , 20–28 ]. Yet, the challenges of integrated care persist despite this body of work [ 22 , 29 , 30 ].…”

“…The IEP, which sets out supports such as assistive technologies, educational assistants, test-taking accommodations, or modifications to expectations for children with special needs at school, often cites or excerpts practitioners' diagnoses and recommendations [ 12 , 63–65 ]. Frequently, the IEP and its surrounding processes result in confusion, conflict, and frustration for families and practitioners, while children with disabilities are not optimally supported [ 7 , 12 , 63 , 66–71 ]. Families report difficulty accessing services [ 3 , 68 , 72–74 ], and some have questioned whether the IEP appropriately focuses on children as individuals, or whether it should focus on the shortcomings of schools instead [ 75 ].…”

Making Sense of Inconsistencies in Psycho-Educational Assessment: A Case Report

“…There is growing recognition of the importance of collaborative approaches across educational psychology, neuropsychology and speech-language pathology (Dunsmuir, Clifford, & Took, 2006;Law & Durkin, 2000;McConnellogue, 2011;Sander, Raymer, Wertheimer, & Paul, 2009). Finello (2011) has pointed out the particular value of cross-discipline collaborations in psycho-educational assessment and diagnosis.…”

SLT beliefs about collaborative practice: Implications for education and learning

“…SLTs, who tend to adhere to a prioritization model, may also not fully appreciate that teachers must manage the needs of all the children in the school (Baxter et al, 2009). Differing philosophies often lead to differing terminologies, and poor communication has also been identified as a barrier to collaboration due to poor mechanisms for the exchange of information between health and education (Dunsmuir et al, 2006) and differing approaches to consent (McConnellogue, 2011).…”