Protocol for SonoSpeech Cleft Pilot: a mixed-methods pilot randomized control trial of ultrasound visual biofeedback versus standard intervention for children with cleft lip and palate

Ultrasound Tongue Imaging in Research and Practice with People with Cleft Palate ± Cleft Lip

Ultrasound tongue imaging is becoming popular as a tool for both phonetic research and biofeedback for treating speech sound disorders. Despite this, it has not yet been adopted into cleft palate ± cleft lip care. This paper explores why this might be the case by highlighting recent research in this area and exploring the advantages and disadvantages of using ultrasound in cleft palate ± cleft lip care. Research suggests that technological advances have largely overcome some of the difficulties of employing ultrasound with this population and we predict a future increase in the clinical application of the tool.

How differences in anatomy and physiology and other aetiology affect the way we label and describe speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate

BACKGROUND

Speech in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is a complex myriad of presenting symptoms. It is uniquely associated with the structural difference of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), together with a wide and heterogeneous range of other aetiologies which often co-occur. The nature of the speech sound disorder (SSD) including VPI may also change over the course of an individual's care pathway. Differences in terminology and approaches to analysis are currently used, resulting in confusion internationally. Additionally, current diagnostic labels and classification systems in SSD do not capture the complexity and full nature of speech characteristics in CLP.

AIMS

This paper aims to explore the different aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech and to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). In so doing, it attempts to unravel the different terminology used in the field, describing commonalities and differences, and identifying overlaps with the speech summary patterns used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The paper also aims to explore the applicability of current diagnostic labels and classification systems in the non-cleft SSD literature and illustrate certain implications for speech intervention in CLP.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The different aetiologies were identified from the literature and mapped onto cleft palate/VPI speech characteristics. Different terminology and approaches to analysis are defined and overlaps described. The applicability of current classification systems in SSD is discussed including additional diagnostic labels proposed in the field.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech identified include developmental (cognitive-linguistic), middle ear disease and fluctuating hearing loss, altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, VPI-structural (abnormal palate muscle) and VPI-iatrogenic (maxillary advancement surgery). There are four main terminologies used to describe cleft palate/VPI speech: active/passive and compensatory/obligatory, which overlap with the four categories used in the UK speech summary patterns: anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs, non-oral CSCs and passive CSCs, although not directly comparable. Current classification systems in non-cleft SSD do not sufficiently capture the full nature and complexity of cleft palate/VPI speech.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our attempt at identifying the heterogeneous range of aetiologies provides clinicians with a better understanding of cleft palate/VPI speech to inform the management pathway and the nature and type of speech intervention required. We hope that the unravelling of the different terminology in relation to the UK speech summary patterns, and those used elsewhere, reduces confusion and provides more clarity for clinicians in the field. Diagnostic labels and classification require international agreement.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Speech associated with cleft palate/velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a complex myriad of speech characteristics with a wide and heterogeneous range of aetiologies. Different terminology and speech summary patterns are used to describe the speech characteristics. The traditional classification of cleft palate/VPI speech is Articulation Disorder, although evidence is building for Phonological Disorder and contrastive approaches in cleft speech intervention. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper explores the range of aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech (e.g., altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, abnormal palate muscle and iatrogenic aetiologies) and attempts to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). An attempt is made at unravelling the different terminology used in relation to a well-known and validated approach to analysis, used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Complexities of current diagnostic labels and classifications in Speech Sound Disorder to describe cleft palate/VPI speech are discussed. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? There needs to be a common language for describing and summarising cleft palate/VPI speech. Speech summary patterns based on narrow phonetic transcription and correct identification of aetiology are essential for the accurate classification of the speech disorder and identification of speech intervention approaches. There is an urgent need for research to identify the most appropriate type of contrastive (phonological) approach in cleft lip and/or palate.

An initial framework for use of ultrasound by speech and language therapists in the UK: Scope of practice, education and governance

Background:

There is growing evidence to support the use of ultrasound as a tool for the assessment and treatment of speech, voice and swallowing disorders across the Speech and Language Therapy profession. Research has shown that development of training competencies, engagement with employers and the professional body are vital to progressing ultrasound into practice.

Methods:

We present a framework to support translation of ultrasound into Speech and Language Therapy. The framework comprises three elements: (1) scope of practice, (2) education and competency and (3) governance. These elements align to provide a foundation for sustainable and high-quality ultrasound application across the profession.

Results:

Scope of practice includes the tissues to be imaged, the clinical and sonographic differentials and subsequent clinical decision-making. Defining this provides transformational clarity to Speech and Language Therapists, other imaging professionals and those designing care pathways. Education and competency are explicitly aligned with the scope of practice and include requisite training content and mechanisms for supervision/support from an appropriately trained individual in this area. Governance elements include legal, professional and insurance considerations. Quality assurance recommendations include data protection, storage of images, testing of ultrasound devices as well as continuous professional development and access to a second opinion.

Conclusion:

The framework provides an adaptable model for supporting expansion of ultrasound across a range of Speech and Language Therapy specialities. By taking an integrated approach, this multifaceted solution provides the foundation for those with speech, voice and swallowing disorders to benefit from advances in imaging-informed healthcare.