Comparing In Vivo versus Simulation Training for Transnasal Endoscopy Skills

Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluations of swallowing (FEES) is as important of a swallowing evaluation as the videoflouroscopic swallow study, but far fewer speech-language pathologists are competent in its use (Ambika, Datta, Manjula, Warawantkar, & Thomas, 2019; Brady & Donzelli, 2013; Pisegna & Langmore, 2016). One hurdle in FEES training is the necessity of practicing transnasal endoscopy on volunteers. The primary aim of this study was to compare the learning effectiveness of practicing transnasal endoscopy via simulation with practice in vivo for a student’s first passes of the endoscope. The end goal of this study was to determine the most cost-effective and feasible means of teaching transnasal endoscopy to graduate clinicians. Twenty-one graduate students practiced transnasal endoscopy in one of three conditions: in vivo, high-fidelity lifelike simulation, low-fidelity non-lifelike simulation. The learning outcomes assessed were speed of endoscopy, student confidence, and simulated patients’ comfort and perception of student skill. There were no significant differences between conditions found for any of these measures. Students in all conditions became more confident after practicing endoscopy, and that confidence was predictive of procedure time. The results of this study indicate that practice with simulation may be an important first step in teaching endoscopy

The Utility of Peer-to-Peer Practice for Teaching Speech-Language Pathology Students Transnasal Endoscopy

Introduction: Transnasal flexible endoscopy (TNFE) is necessary for multiple assessments in speech-language pathology (SLP), but it is generally considered an advanced practice technique to be learned during clinical practice. As such, there is no standardized way that it is taught in training programs, leading to a substantial knowledge gap for new graduates. Though peer-to-peer practice has been discussed as an important step in training, it is not clear whether it confers additional benefits above and beyond simulation. This study sought to answer that question in the areas of student confidence, endoscopy speed, and motivation to pursue further TNFE experiences. Methods: Thirty-six SLP graduate students completed TNFE training and one of two practice conditions: simulation only or simulation with additional peer-to-peer practice. Outcome measures included confidence and comfort surveys, intrinsic motivation to complete an additional TNFE experience, and speed of TNFE. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups for any measure, and consistently low effect sizes indicated there was little difference between groups. Conclusions: These results indicate that teaching TNFE through simulation may provide similar outcomes to peer-to-peer practice during the initial training that an SLP graduate program can provide. This adds to the literature indicating that TNFE simulation is a worthwhile addition to SLP programs

Clinical Education Outcomes and Research Directions in Speech-Language Pathology: A Scoping Review

Purpose: To describe what researchers are investigating and how they are measuring the constructs of their investigations within the speech-language pathology (SLP) clinical education literature. Method: A scoping review methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) was employed to develop a picture of clinical education articles which reported a measured outcome. Articles that met criteria were categorized by the purpose of the investigation and the outcome measures reported. Result: 124 articles met inclusion criteria. Analysis of study purposes revealed a wide breadth of foci that were grouped into four broad clusters: Outcome Measures, Student Perspectives, Educational Contexts, and Teaching Methods. Most of the studies in the corpus relied only on student self-report measures. In addition, any specific outcome measure was typically used only once and not found in subsequent studies. Trends indicate a variety of constructs are being studied at an exploratory level with limited in-depth investigation. Conclusion: Given the inconsistency of outcome measures and reliance on self-report measures, more research is needed to validate recommendations of best practices in clinical education. Areas of need include developing and implementing validated outcomes, more frequent investigation of clinical education using measures other than student self-reports, and testing theories found in other fields

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

GWAS of thyroid stimulating hormone highlights pleiotropic effects and inverse association with thyroid cancer

Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) is critical for normal development and metabolism. To better understand the genetic contribution to TSH levels, we conduct a GWAS meta-analysis at 22.4 million genetic markers in up to 119,715 individuals and identify 74 genome-wide significant loci for TSH, of which 28 are previously unreported. Functional experiments show that the thyroglobulin protein-altering variants P118L and G67S impact thyroglobulin secretion. Phenome-wide association analysis in the UK Biobank demonstrates the pleiotropic effects of TSH-associated variants and a polygenic score for higher TSH levels is associated with a reduced risk of thyroid cancer in the UK Biobank and three other independent studies. Two-sample Mendelian randomization using TSH index variants as instrumental variables suggests a protective effect of higher TSH levels (indicating lower thyroid function) on risk of thyroid cancer and goiter. Our findings highlight the pleiotropic effects of TSH-associated variants on thyroid function and growth of malignant and benign thyroid tumors

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Clinical evidence in speech-language pathology (Fissel Brannick et al., 2022)

Purpose: Two disparate models drive American speech-language pathologists’ views of evidence-based practice (EBP): the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s (2004a, 2004b) and Dollaghan’s (2007). These models discuss evidence derived from clinical practice but differ in the terms used, the definitions, and discussions of its role. These concepts, which we unify as clinical evidence, are an important part of EBP but lack consistent terminology and clear definitions in the literature. Our objective was to identify how clinical evidence is described in the field. Method: We conducted a scoping review to identify terms ascribed to clinical evidence and their descriptions. We searched the peer-reviewed, accessible, speech-language pathology intervention literature from 2005 to 2020. We extracted the terms and descriptions, from which three types of clinical evidence arose. We then used an open-coding framework to categorize positive and negative descriptions of clinical expertise and summarize the role of clinical evidence in decision making. Results: Seventy-eight articles included a description of clinical evidence. Across publications, a single term was used to describe disparate concepts, and the same concept was given different terms, yet the concepts that authors described clustered into three categories: clinical opinion, clinical expertise, and practice-based evidence, with each described as distinct from research evidence, and separate from the process of clinical decision making. Clinical opinion and clinical expertise were intrinsic to the clinician. Clinical opinion was insufficient and biased, whereas clinical expertise was a positive multidimensional construct. Practice-based evidence was extrinsic to the clinician—the local clinical data that clinicians generated. Good clinical decisions integrated multiple sources of evidence. Conclusions: These results outline a shared language for SLPs to discuss their clinical evidence with researchers, families, allied professionals, and each other. Clarification of the terminology, associated definitions, and the contributions of clinical evidence to good clinical decision-making informs EBP models in speech-language pathology. Supplemental Material S1. Corpus references.  Supplemental Material S2. Clinical evidence terms and sources.  Supplemental Material S3. Operational definitions and counts for clinical expertise categories and codes (N = 68). Supplemental Material S4. Operational definitions and counts for good clinical decision-making categories and codes (n = 53).  Fissel Brannick, S., Wolford, G. W., Wolford, L. L., Effron, K., & Buckler, J. (2022). What is clinical evidence in speech-language pathology? A scoping review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00203</p