Practice Patterns in Speech-Language Pathologist Treatment of Induced Laryngeal Obstruction

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to examine current speech-language pathologist (SLP) practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of induced laryngeal obstruction (ILO; both exercise- and irritant-induced variants: exercise-induced laryngeal obstruction [EILO]/ILO). Method: One hundred ninety-one SLPs from throughout the United States were surveyed regarding practice patterns for diagnosing and treating EILO/ILO. SLPs were queried regarding diagnostic procedures, treatment practices, outcome measures, rescue breathing strategies utilized, and discharge criteria employed within their clinical practice. SLPs rated their confidence in treating EILO/ILO using a visual analog scale. Clinician confidence was compared across SLPs working in different settings, with different populations, and with varying access to diagnostic equipment/collaborators. Median income of facility neighborhood and clinician experience were also considered. Results: Most SLPs reported that patients with EILO/ILO were diagnosed using laryngoscopy (with or without videostroboscopy) either at rest or following exercise. Only 4.7% of respondents indicated that their patients had access to continuous laryngoscopy during exercise (CLE) for diagnosing EILO. The Dyspnea Index was the most common patient-reported outcome measure for both EILO and ILO. SLPs reported high confidence levels in rescue breathing techniques, and informal patient report was the most common method of tracking therapeutic progress. Forty-one percent of SLPs voiced the need for increased access to diagnostic equipment (CLE or laryngoscopy), and 51.8% expressed the need for exercise facilities (i.e., treadmills or places to have patients run). Clinicians reported significantly higher levels of confidence treating EILO as opposed to ILO (p < .001). Collaborating with a laryngologist (p < .001), more years of experience (p = .025), and wealthier median income of practice setting (p = .014) predicted increased confidence in treating EILO/ILO. Conclusions: SLPs may have limited access to the most effective facilities and diagnostic equipment designed to identify EILO/ILO. Continuing research is needed to provide SLPs with evidence-based diagnostic procedures, treatment strategies, and outcome measures to enhance EILO/ILO intervention for all patients.