11 results found
Newington L, Wells M, Adonis A, et al., 2021, A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine, BMC Health Services Research, Vol: 21, ISSN: 1472-6963
Background: There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. Methods: Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. Results: Of the initial 2,704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. Conclusions: Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTO
Devabalan Y, Malik A, Coffey M, et al., 2020, Video laryngoscope-guided (GlideScope (R)) injection of botulinum toxin in laryngectomy patients with limited neck extension, CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, Vol: 46, Pages: 116-118, ISSN: 1749-4478
Dawson C, Roe J, Starmer H, et al., 2020, Patient advocacy in head and neck cancer: Realities, challenges and the role of the multi-disciplinary team, Clinical Otolaryngology, Vol: 45, Pages: 437-444, ISSN: 0307-7772
This paper explores the concept of advocacy in head and neck cancer. We define inherent challenges in the development and success of advocacy within this context and offer ways to embed it within clinical practice. We outline what advocacy is, ways in which it may benefit people with head and neck cancer and the engagement required from healthcare professionals to facilitate advocacy to improve outcomes.
Coffey M, Tolley N, Howard D, et al., 2018, An investigation of reliability of the Sunderland Tracheosophageal Voice Perceptual Scale, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, Vol: 71, Pages: 16-23, ISSN: 1021-7762
Background: The Sunderland Tracheosophageal Voice Perceptual scale (SToPS) is the only perceptual rating scale designed specifically for tracheosophageal voice [Hurren et al.: Clin Otolaryngol. 2009 Dec; 34(6): 533–8]. Objective: To investigate the inter rater reliability of the SToPS when analyzing alaryngeal voice. Methods: Prospective evaluation of inter rater reliability of the SToPS based on audio recordings of 230 voice samples from 41 laryngectomy patients rated by 3 experts. Interval data were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) while categorical data were analyzed using Kappa. Results: ICC of above 0.6 was observed between raters for each prosthesis on a majority of parameters demonstrating a good level of reliability. Reliability was fair (ICC of between 0.40 and 0.59) on Q11 (Articulatory precision) and Q12 (Paralinguistics). Reliability was also fair (0.21–0.40) or slight (0.00–0.20) for Q2 (Tonicity), which was analyzed using Kappa. Kappa above 0.61 signified a good level of reliability. Conclusions: This study demonstrates good rater reliability for the majority of parameters on the SToPS scale, supporting the use of this tool within the clinical realm. However, further research is required to ascertain if any methods of increasing inter rater reliability on those parameters which did not reach good reliability can be identified.
Coffey M, Tolley N, Howard D, et al., 2018, Evaluating the effect of different voice prostheses on alaryngeal voice quality, The Laryngoscope, Vol: 128, Pages: 2460-2466, ISSN: 0023-852X
ObjectiveTo investigate the difference between voice prostheses in terms of voice quality as experienced by patients and as judged by expert raters.MethodsSubjects had up to six voice prostheses placed in a random order. A voice sample was elicited for each patient on each prosthesis. Auditory perceptual voice analysis of each voice sample was undertaken by expert raters using the Sunderland Tracheoesophageal Voice Perceptual Scale (SToPS). Raters also identified the best overall prosthesis for voice for each patient. Raters were blinded to patient details, type of laryngectomy surgery, type of voice prosthesis, and scores of other raters. After each prosthesis trial, patients self‐evaluated voice using a questionnaire developed for this purpose.ResultsExpert raters were not able to identify a best overall voice prosthesis using SToPS. Expert raters most frequently chose the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling (InHealth Technologies, Carpinteria, CA) as the overall best prosthesis for voice for each patient. Patient self‐evaluation scores indicated a preference for the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling Prosthesis (InHealth Technologies) for voice, whereas preference for best overall prosthesis was for the Provox NID (Atos Medical AB, Hörby, Sweden)ConclusionExpert raters did not identify a best prosthesis for voice using SToPS, although the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling (InHealth Technologies) was most frequently chosen as best for voice. Patient self‐evaluation indicated a difference between preference of prosthesis for voice and preference for best overall voice prosthesis. Individual patients had their own personal preferences, suggesting they should be involved in the choice of their voice prosthesis.
Coffey MM, Tolley N, Howard D, et al., 2018, Double Blind Study Investigating the Effect of Different Voice Prostheses on Ease of Swallowing and Residue Post Laryngectomy., Dysphagia, Vol: 33, Pages: 616-626, ISSN: 1432-0460
Voice prostheses have been examined for their effect on voice production but there is little datum on their effect on swallow function. This study investigated the difference between six commonly available voice prostheses in terms of swallowing. Laryngectomy patients had up to six voice prostheses placed in a random order over two visits. Swallowing was evaluated for each prosthesis using FEES (Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing). After each prosthesis trial, patients self-evaluated their experience of swallowing. Three independent experts indicated which prosthesis they considered best for swallowing for each patient and judged residue on the voice prosthesis and in the upper esophagus. Raters were blinded to participant details, voice prosthesis type and scores of other raters. On patient self-evaluation, scores were equally distributed across all prostheses for swallowing. Experts most frequently chose the Blom Singer Low pressure and Blom Singer Classic Indwelling voice prostheses as best for swallowing but consensus was poor for most patients. Experts found that the Blom Singer Classic Indwelling and the Provox Vega had least residue on the voice prosthesis on thin liquid (p ≤ 0.001) and soft (p = 0.001), respectively. Experts also found that the Blom Singer Low Pressure had least residue in the upper esophagus on soft consistency (p ≤ 0.001). While self-evaluation by patients did not identify a consistently preferred prosthesis for swallow, many patients expressed personal preferences, suggesting benefits to involving patients in the choice of prosthesis. Some voice prostheses may be associated with lower levels of residue on the prosthesis and upper esophagus with certain consistencies.
Coffey MM, Tolley N, Howard D, et al., 2018, An Investigation of the Post-laryngectomy Swallow Using Videofluoroscopy and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES)., Dysphagia, Vol: 33, Pages: 369-379, ISSN: 1432-0460
This study investigates the post-laryngectomy swallow. Presence and degree of residue on the post-laryngectomy swallow as observed on videofluoroscopy and FEES is described. In addition, videofluoroscopy and FEES are assessed for reliability and inter-instrument agreement. 30 laryngectomy subjects underwent dysphagia evaluation using simultaneous videofluoroscopy and FEES. These were reviewed post-examination by three expert raters using a rating scale designed for this purpose. Raters were blinded to subject details, type of laryngectomy surgery, pairing of FEES and videofluoroscopy examinations and the scores of other raters. There was a finding of residue in 78% of videofluoroscopy ratings, and 83% of FEES ratings. Comparison of the tools indicated poor inter-rater reliability and poor inter-instrument agreement. Dysphagia is an issue post laryngectomy as measured by patient self-report and by instrumental evaluation. However, alternative dysphagia rating tools and dysphagia evaluation tools are required to enable accurate identification and intervention for underlying swallow physiology post laryngectomy.
Clarke P, Radford K, Coffey M, et al., 2016, Speech and swallow rehabilitation in head and neck cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines, JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, Vol: 130, Pages: S176-S180, ISSN: 0022-2151
Coffey M, Edels Y, Clarke P, 2015, Problem solving after complications of tracheo-oesophageal valve (voice prosthesis) insertion, Journal of ENT Masterclass
Coffey M, Tolley N, 2015, Swallowing after laryngectomy, CURRENT OPINION IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY & HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, Vol: 23, Pages: 202-208, ISSN: 1068-9508
Moradi P, Glass GE, Atherton DD, et al., 2010, Reconstruction of Pharyngolaryngectomy Defects Using the Jejunal Free Flap: A 10-Year Experience from a Single Reconstructive Center, PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, Vol: 126, Pages: 1960-1966, ISSN: 0032-1052
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.