Worth a try or a last resort: Healthcare professionals’ experiences and opinions of above cuff vocalisation

Abstract

BackgroundAbove cuff vocalisation (ACV) involves the application of an external flow of air via the subglottic port of a tracheostomy. ACV can facilitate vocalisation and may improve swallowing and quality of life for patients with a tracheostomy. A recent systematic review highlighted the limited evidence available for the acceptability, effectiveness, safety or optimal implementation of ACV.AimsTo explore the experience of healthcare professionals (HCPs) using ACV and their perceptions of best practice.Methods and ProceduresSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with a range of HCPs with experience using ACV. Topics included: experiences with ACV, management of ACV, opinions about ACV, impact of COVID‐19, future directions for ACV and impact on length of stay. Interviews were conducted online from December 2020 to March 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Outcomes and ResultsTwenty‐four HCPs were interviewed from seven countries and five professional groups. Four interconnected themes were developed: (1) moral distress amplifying the need to fix patients; (2) subjectivity and uncertainty leading to variations in practice and purpose; (3) knowledge and experience leading to control and caution; and (4) worth a try or a last resort. Theme four contained three sub‐themes: (a) part of the toolbox; (b) useful but limited tool; and (c) following the patient's lead. The moral distress experienced by HCPs and their essential ‘need to fix’ patients seems to underpin the varied opinions of ACV. These opinions appear to be formed primarily on the basis of experience, because of the underlying subjectivities and uncertainties. As knowledge and experience with ACV increased, and adverse events were experienced, most HCPs became more cautious in their approach to ACV.Conclusions and ImplicationsMore research is needed to reduce the subjectivities and uncertainties surrounding ACV. The implementation of standardised procedures, processes, and competencies may help to reduce the frequency of adverse events and support a more controlled approach. Widening the focus of the purpose of ACV to include swallowing may help to maximise the potential benefits.WHAT THIS PAPER ADDSWhat is already known on the subject There is limited and low‐quality evidence for above cuff vocalisation (ACV) and clinical application and practice varies substantially. However, the reasons for this variation in practice and healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) opinions of ACV were unclear.What this study adds HCPs’ experiences and opinions of ACV vary as a result of the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV compounded by their personal experiences with it. A need for caution also appears to emerge as HCPs become more familiar and experienced with using ACV.What are the clinical implications of this work? Implementing standardised procedures, safety processes and competencies may help to compensate for the uncertainty and subjectivity surrounding ACV and may reduce the frequency of adverse events. Widening the focus of purpose of ACV, including swallowing in addition to communication, may increase the number of potential candidates and increase the potential benefits of ACV. Using multidisciplinary team (MDT) simulation training for ACV competency development might help to improve MDT working and ACV implementation.