The top ten: best practice recommendations for aphasia

Simmons-Mackie, Nina, Worrall, Linda, Murray, Laura L., Enderby, Pam, Rose, Miranda L., Paek, Eun Jin, Klippi, Anu and on behalf of the Aphasia United Best Practices Working Group and Advisory Committee (2016) The top ten: best practice recommendations for aphasia. Aphasiology, 1-21. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1180662

Author Simmons-Mackie, Nina
Worrall, Linda
Murray, Laura L.
Enderby, Pam
Rose, Miranda L.
Paek, Eun Jin
Klippi, Anu
on behalf of the Aphasia United Best Practices Working Group and Advisory Committee
Title The top ten: best practice recommendations for aphasia
Journal name Aphasiology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1464-5041
Publication date 2016-05-09
Year available 2016
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1080/02687038.2016.1180662
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Start page 1
End page 21
Total pages 21
Place of publication Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom
Publisher Routledge
Collection year 2017
Formatted abstract
Background: The move from nationally focused health services towards healthcare globalisation is apparent with the hope that healthcare services will ultimately follow similar quality standards and guidelines throughout the world. Aphasia United, an organisation representing a broad range of professionals and others interested in improving the lives of those with aphasia, undertook a project to gain consensus on best practices to guide aphasia rehabilitation across multiple countries.

Aims: To develop and gain multinational consensus on an initial set of best practice recommendations for aphasia.

Methods & Procedures: The project entailed three phases: (1) crafting a draft set of recommendations for aphasia management drawing from research evidence and stroke guidelines, (2) obtaining consensus on recommendations from healthcare experts across multiple countries and (3) creating a strategic plan to facilitate dissemination, revision, further development and uptake of best practices. This article reports on the first two phases of this process. Phase 1 entailed reviewing existing research reviews, national clinical guidelines for stroke and/or aphasia and evidence websites to identify recommendations based on high-quality evidence. Nine national stroke and/or aphasia guidelines were identified to serve as the primary source documents. A qualitative theme analysis was used to extract recommendations from these documents. An auditing reviewer examined the source documents and extracts to ensure that results were consistent with sources. Finally, the recommendations were circulated to an expert panel for input. Phase 2 involved a multiple stage consensus process: (1) discussion of draft recommendations by an expanded panel of experts, (2) cycles of revision by an expert working group, (3) an online survey soliciting agreement from a broader panel of experts and (4) an open-ended online survey soliciting consensus from professionals across multiple countries.

Outcomes & Results: The cycles of revision and the final consensus of 500 aphasia experts across multiple countries resulted in 10 best practice recommendations for aphasia including screening, assessment, intervention and discharge recommendations.

Conclusions: The top 10 recommendations achieved very strong consensus among participants. These results provide an initial set of recommendations that might serve as a basis for translating evidence into practice to improve aphasia services. Future efforts should be directed at determining barriers to implementation. In addition, individual countries or groups (whether represented in the consensus process or not) will necessarily need to consider the applicability of recommendations to their own cultural and ethnic traditions and national practices.
Keyword Aphasia
Clinical practice guidelines
Consensus development
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 24 May 2016, 00:32:20 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)