JCPSLP Vol 16 Issue 1 2014

The survey consisted of 42 questions across the five areas of (i) service data and demographics, (ii) SLP therapy/ intervention services, (iii) education, advocacy and liaison, (iv) service delivery and (v) “ideal state” of BIRU SLP services. A frequency rating scale was utilised to measure the frequency of specific clinical activities in sections (ii) and (iii) (as suggested by Rattray & Jones, 2005), and to aid in comparisons of information across sites. Open response or free text questions were utilised for the remainder of the survey to elicit as much information as possible from respondents regarding service delivery. The survey was informally reviewed and piloted by SLP colleagues from the local BIRU team, and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. This paper reports on the areas of (i) service data and demographics, (ii) SLP intervention services and (iii) service delivery (which incorporates 25 questions). This study is part of a larger study into SLP practice in sub-acute brain injury rehabilitation, and further results are reported in Watter, Addis, Copley and Finch (2013). Data analysis Results from the surveys were collated and entered into a Microsoft Excel database. The survey data were analysed descriptively, with frequency, percentages and means of the collated data identified. The results were reviewed by a second SLP to ensure accuracy and agreement. The percentage agreement initially between the two investigating SLPs was 99.7% (335 items out of 336

collated responses initially in agreement). After discussion of the outstanding features, 100% agreement was reached between SLPs. Results Staffing Staffing and demographics are reported in Table 1. The number of inpatient beds per unit ranged from 14–30 ( M = 21.87, SD = 6.49) with SLP staffing ratios ranging from 6.4 to 29 patients per full-time equivalent (FTE) SLPs ( M = 13.08, SD = 6.95). Therapy services SLPs performed a range of clinical interventions in BIRUs with varying frequency, with patterns in service provision

Table 3. SLP group interventions in BIRU Impairment/ Function/ skill based

participation based

Total number

13 (56.5%)

10 (43.4%)

of groups

Number of

9

8

different groups identified

Frequency

Weekly (11) Daily (1) Monthly (1)

All groups run weekly

Table 1. SLP BIRU Staffing

Types of groups/ activities

Low level/AAC Problem solving

Coffee group (2)

Sites A B C D E F G H

Movie group

Reading and writing Karaoke group Memory

Transition/outing group

Number of inpatient beds Number of SLP staff (FTE)

Naming

News group (2) Cook and chat Evening group Speech and song

14 16 29 16 16 30 28 26

Orientation (2)

Dysarthria

1.6 1.6 1 2.5 1.6 1.6 3.2 2

Communication/

Patient: SLP ratio

conversation (4)

8.75 10 29 6.4 10 18.75 8.75 13

Computer group Note: AAC = Alternative or augmentative communication

Notes: patient:SLP ratio is the number of patients per SLP; patient:SLP ratio is calculated per 1 FTE SLP, irrespective of SLP grade/level

Table 2. Types and frequency of SLP interventions provided in BIRUs

Intervention frequency

Treatment type

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Everyday

(patient dependent)

1:1 Therapy

0%

0%

0%

25% 75%

Joint session with another SLP

0% 62.5%

25%

12.5% 0%

Joint Multidisciplinary team sessions

0%

0%

87.5%

0% 12.5%

Group therapy – SLP led

12.5% 25%

12.5%

50%

0%

Group therapy – Multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary

25% 12.5%

25%

25% 12.5%

Community or functional outings

12.5% 0%

37.5%

50%

0%

Community access assessment

25% 25%

37.5%

12.5% 0%

Patient led (independent) computer-based therapy

0%

0%

62.5%

25% 12.5%

Family therapy sessions (active involvement)

0%

0%

62.5%

37.5% 0%

9

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 1 2014

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au