Practical Considerations in the Implementation of Instrumental Vocal Function Assessment

What is it about?

In 2018, Patel et al. published a series of core minimum standards for instrumental vocal function assessment. These standards were created by a panel of experts who considered textbooks, research papers, and established clinical procedures. They refined these guidelines over the course of three years, soliciting feedback from colleagues and having in-depth discussions until they reached a consensus. The outcome was a set of basic recommendations that ensure reliable and comparable measurements when assessing vocal function in different situations and with various clients. The Patel et al. publication was a significant accomplishment in the field of vocal function assessment because it gave clinicians a standardized way to evaluate vocal function. It encouraged consistency and made it easier to compare research findings and clinical practices. After the publication, clinicians had time to review and apply these guidelines in their work, reflecting on what worked well and what challenges they faced. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for vocal function assessment, and professionals had to adapt to unexpected changes. This clinical focus article aims to summarize an online discussion among speech-language pathologists who specialize in the assessment and treatment of voice disorders. They talked about their successes, the obstacles they encountered, solutions they found, and questions that remain. This paper opens opportunities for further discussion and learning.

Featured Image

Photo by wuz on Unsplash

Photo by wuz on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The discussion points raised are important, as they address successes and obstacles that affect: 1) Standardization and consistency across various clinical settings 2) Clinician confidence in the quality and accuracy of their vocal function assessment outcomes 3) Implementation of evidence-based practice to support diagnostic findings and treatment recommendations 4) Professional collaboration to help bridge the gap between research and practice 5) Adaptation to changing circumstances, whether due to practice changes or unforeseen challenges, such as those posed by the COVID-19 pandemic