Interprofessional Practice in Schools: A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists
Faculty Advisor Name
Stacey L. Pavelko
Description
Purpose: The purpose of this survey was to examine SLPs’ engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP) in schools during assessment and treatment.
Significance: Effective IPP is a necessary component of school-based practice. For example, ASHA includes working interprofessionally with classroom teachers in planning and implementing curriculum-relevant language and literacy programs as part of the roles and responsibilities for school-based SLPs (ASHA, 2010). Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (2006) requires collaboration among qualified professionals and parents when determining whether a child has a disability. While the ASHA 2017 Interprofessional Practice Survey gave a broad overview of the current state of IPP in the field of speech-language pathology, a more targeted survey was needed to address school SLPs’ practices more specifically. Although this survey provided some indications of IPP in school-based settings, it is limited in that it did not inquire about setting-specific interprofessional behaviors.
Methods: A national web-based survey was distributed to school-based SLPs by email, ASHA Special Interest Groups, and SLP Facebook groups. The survey was open for the months of May and June 2017. The survey focused on the eligibility, evaluation, and treatment phases of the Special Education Individualized Education Program process. Questions were scenario-based to minimize misinterpretation of collaborative models. Specific behaviors of the interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interprofessional collaboration models were provided as response choices for each scenario. Items were based on the Inteprofessional Education Collaborative’s four core competencies of roles and responsibilities, teams and teamwork, values and ethics, and inteprofessional communication.
Results: A total of 550 school-based SLPs from 48 states completed the survey. Only 44% of respondents said they have received training on how to work on teams with other professionals in a school setting. More interprofessional collaboration behaviors were reported during the eligibility and assessment processes than during treatment. SLPs reported collaborating with many of the same education professionals during the assessment and treatment processes including occupational therapists, special education teachers, and classroom teachers. Time constraints were cited as the biggest barrier to participation on teams, followed by resistance from professionals of other disciplines. A majority (51%) said a smaller caseload would increase their engagement on teams. In addition, 99.5% said they would participate in collaborative training, with 48% preferring it to be done during school district-sponsored training events.
Conclusions: While ASHA emphasizes the importance of engagement of SLPs in IPP, less than half of school-based SLPs surveyed said they have received training on how to work on teams with other professionals in school settings. Currently, more IPP is taking place during the eligibility and assessment processes than treatment.
Interprofessional Practice in Schools: A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists
Purpose: The purpose of this survey was to examine SLPs’ engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP) in schools during assessment and treatment.
Significance: Effective IPP is a necessary component of school-based practice. For example, ASHA includes working interprofessionally with classroom teachers in planning and implementing curriculum-relevant language and literacy programs as part of the roles and responsibilities for school-based SLPs (ASHA, 2010). Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (2006) requires collaboration among qualified professionals and parents when determining whether a child has a disability. While the ASHA 2017 Interprofessional Practice Survey gave a broad overview of the current state of IPP in the field of speech-language pathology, a more targeted survey was needed to address school SLPs’ practices more specifically. Although this survey provided some indications of IPP in school-based settings, it is limited in that it did not inquire about setting-specific interprofessional behaviors.
Methods: A national web-based survey was distributed to school-based SLPs by email, ASHA Special Interest Groups, and SLP Facebook groups. The survey was open for the months of May and June 2017. The survey focused on the eligibility, evaluation, and treatment phases of the Special Education Individualized Education Program process. Questions were scenario-based to minimize misinterpretation of collaborative models. Specific behaviors of the interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interprofessional collaboration models were provided as response choices for each scenario. Items were based on the Inteprofessional Education Collaborative’s four core competencies of roles and responsibilities, teams and teamwork, values and ethics, and inteprofessional communication.
Results: A total of 550 school-based SLPs from 48 states completed the survey. Only 44% of respondents said they have received training on how to work on teams with other professionals in a school setting. More interprofessional collaboration behaviors were reported during the eligibility and assessment processes than during treatment. SLPs reported collaborating with many of the same education professionals during the assessment and treatment processes including occupational therapists, special education teachers, and classroom teachers. Time constraints were cited as the biggest barrier to participation on teams, followed by resistance from professionals of other disciplines. A majority (51%) said a smaller caseload would increase their engagement on teams. In addition, 99.5% said they would participate in collaborative training, with 48% preferring it to be done during school district-sponsored training events.
Conclusions: While ASHA emphasizes the importance of engagement of SLPs in IPP, less than half of school-based SLPs surveyed said they have received training on how to work on teams with other professionals in school settings. Currently, more IPP is taking place during the eligibility and assessment processes than treatment.
