Does parental experience of the diagnosis and intervention process differ for children with auditory neuropathy?

Diagnostic procedures of paediatric speech and language therapists in the UK: Enabling and obstructive factors

BACKGROUND

Extensive variation in the terminology used for paediatric diagnoses across the speech and language therapy research literature is an internationally recognized problem. Little is known, however, about how and how often diagnoses are given in a clinical context. In the UK, speech and language therapists (SLTs) identify and support children who have speech and language needs. To understand and address clinically rooted terminological issues that may directly impact clients and families, there is a need for exploration of how the diagnostic process is operationalized in practice.

AIM

To identify, from the perspective of SLTs, areas that present as enabling and obstructive factors to conducting diagnosis in clinical practice.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Taking a phenomenological approach, 22 paediatric SLTs were interviewed using a semi-structured format. Thematic analysis revealed a number of factors that were either classified as 'enabling' or 'obstructive' to their diagnostic processes.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Participants were often hesitant to provide a diagnosis to families and universally reported the need for targeted guidance, which accounts for the demands of current clinical practice, to guide their diagnostic process. Four enabling factors were identified from participant data: (1) working to a medical model, (2) the availability of collegiate support, (3) recognizing the benefits of diagnosis,, and (4) relating to the needs of the family. Seven themes portrayed obstructive factors in practice: (1) the complex presentation of clients, (2) the risk of giving a 'wrong' diagnosis, (3) participants' uncertainty about diagnostic criteria, (4) insufficient training, (5) service models, (6) concerns about stigma and (7) not having enough clinical time. The obstructive factors created dilemmas for participants and resulted in hesitancy to give a diagnosis, potentially contributing to delays in diagnosis experienced by families as reported in previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Of paramountcy to SLTs were the individual needs and preferences of their clients. Practical barriers and areas of uncertainty increased hesitance to diagnose, which may inadvertently preclude families from accessing resources. Recommendations include more widely accessible training in diagnostic practice, guidelines to support clinical decision-making, and a greater understanding of client preferences with regard to terminology and its potential relationship with social stigma.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Inconsistency in terminology for paediatric language diagnoses has been broadly discussed, mostly in reference to variation within research literature. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists' (RCSLT) position statement on developmental language disorder (DLD) and language disorder made recommendations for SLTs to use these terms in clinical practice. There is some evidence that SLTs face challenges in operationalizing diagnostic criteria in practice, particularly given financial and resource constraints. What this paper adds to existing knowledge SLTs disclosed several issues that either supported or were obstructive to the practice of diagnosing paediatric clients and delivering this information to families. Whilst most SLTs faced constraints related to the practicalities and demands of clinical practice, a number also held reservations about the impact of a lifelong diagnosis for young clients. These issues resulted in considerable avoidance of formal diagnostic terminology, in favour of description or informal terminology. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? If diagnoses are not given, or if SLTs are using informal diagnostic terms as an alternative strategy, clients and families may experience reduced opportunities to yield benefits associated with a diagnosis. Clinical guidance that specifically addresses the prioritization of time and provides directives for clinical action in instances of uncertainty may support SLTs to feel confident in giving diagnoses.

Parental Decision-Making and Deaf Children: A Systematic Literature Review

Parents or caregivers of children who are deaf or hard of hearing are required to make complex and rational decisions soon after the confirmation of hearing loss. Ways of facilitating decision-making have been a focus within the healthcare sector for two decades and shared decision-making is now widely viewed as the standard for good clinical care. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify the extent to which the principles of shared decision-making and informed choice have been implemented for parents when they make decisions related to their children with permanent hearing loss. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers describing the results of original research published from 2000 to 2017, yielding 37 relevant papers. Studies were reviewed using the three phases of decision-making-information exchange, deliberation, and implementation. Two decisions dominated these studies-implantable devices and communication modality. Most papers dealt with decision-making in the context of bilateral hearing loss, with only one study focusing on unilateral hearing loss. The review identified gaps where further research is needed to ensure the lessons learnt in the broader decision-making literature are implemented when parents make decisions regarding their child who is deaf or hard of hearing.

Narrative review of EHDI in South Africa

Background

With 17 babies born with hearing loss every day in South Africa, there is a pressing need for systematic Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) services. Progress is being made in offering newborn hearing screening and studies have been conducted to document these processes within South Africa. However, due to the lack of a national and holistic overview of EHDI services to date, an accurate picture of the current status of EHDI within the South African context is required.

Objective

To document and profile what has been published within the field of EHDI in South Africa over the last two decades (Jan 1995–Sept 2014) in order to gain a comprehensive overview of the current status and practice of screening and diagnosis in the field of paediatric hearing loss.

Method

A narrative review of peer-reviewed articles related to EHDI in South Africa was conducted by searching the EBSCOHOST, SCOPUS and JSTOR databases for the period January 1995 to September 2014.

Results

Results indicate that over the last two decades research and publications in the field of EHDI have increased considerably. These publications have revealed extensive knowledge related to paediatric hearing screening and intervention services in South Africa; however, this knowledge seems to be limited primarily to the provinces of Gauteng and the Western Cape. Furthermore, studies pertaining to diagnosis have revealed that, although much has been written on the scientific aspects on tools for diagnosis of hearing loss, there is a lack of comprehensive information on diagnostic protocols and procedures.

Conclusion

Despite the clear progress being made in South Africa in the field of early hearing detection and intervention, there is a need for comprehensive studies on protocols and procedures in diagnosing paediatric hearing loss. Finally, the narrative review revealed a clear need to ensure that development and growth in the field of EHDI is a national priority and extends beyond the two provinces currently showing growth.