Tip Back That Tongue! The Posterior Tongue Tie and Feeding Challenges

shutterstock_2457179

In a March 2015 post titled Just Flip the Lip, we explored how the band of tissue or “frenum” that attaches the upper lip to gum tissue can affect feeding development if the frenum is too restrictive. Today, we’ll focus on the lingual frenal attachment that is the easiest to miss: The posterior tongue tie (sometimes referred to as a submucosal tongue tie), a form of ankyloglossia.

Consider that the normal lingual frenum inserts at about midline, just under the tongue and down to the floor of the mouth allowing free range of movement and oral motor skill development. While many pediatric professionals are familiar with a tongue-tie when the frenum attaches closer to the tongue tip (where it’s visible when the tip is gently lifted), the posterior tongue tie requires a specific technique to view. According to Bobby Ghaheri, an ENT surgeon who specializes in treating ankyloglossia, whether anterior or posterior terminology is used, the focus should be on function. As he describes in this article, many anterior ties also include a posterior restriction and releasing just the thin membrane is not always adequate for full tongue function necessary for feeding. The frenum, if visible at all, may appear short and thick, but is often buried in the in the mucosal covering of the tongue.

As a pediatric feeding therapist, I gently lift up the tip of every child’s tongue during the oral examination. But, if I suspect a posterior tongue tie, my next step is to follow the procedure noted in this video by Dr. Ghaheri. This gives me enough information to ask the family to consult further with their pediatrician or primary care provider and a then a pediatric ENT, pediatric dentist or oral surgeon, who may also use specific instruments to better view the attachment. I feel my role as an SLP is to screen, not diagnose.

There are clues that indicate that a posterior tongue tie may be present before following the procedure noted above. The following are just some of the more common indicators of possible restriction of the lingual frenum impacting feeding development:

Appearance

  • Square, heart shaped or indented tip of tongue at rest and/or upon attempted protrusion—this is often indicative of anterior tongue ties, but as noted by Dr. Ghareri, the posterior restriction my still be present.
  • Dimpled tongue on dorsal surface, especially during movement.

Breast and Bottle Feeding

  • Difficulty latching and/or slow feeding.
  • Mother experiences pain while baby nurses.
  • In addition, as seen with upper lip ties, an inadequate latch and/or a poor lip seal may contribute to the following partial list of symptoms:

Spoon and Finger Feeding

  • Retraction of tongue upon presentation of the spoon.
  • Inadequate caloric intake due to inefficiency and fatigue.
  • Tactile oral sensitivity secondary to limited stimulation/mobility of tongue.
  • Over-use of lips, especially lower lip.
  • Difficulty progressing from “munching” to a more lateral, mature chewing pattern.
  • Tongue restriction may influence swallowing patterns and cause compensatory motor movements, which may lead to additional complications, such as “sucking back” the bolus in order to propel it to be swallowed.
  • Possible development of picky, hesitant or selective eating because eating certain foods are challenging.
  • Gagging and subsequent vomiting when food gets “stuck” on tongue.
  • Secondary behaviors to avoid discomfort that are thus protective in nature, such as refusing to sit at the table or being able to eat only when distracted.

Oral Hygiene, Dental and Other Issues Related to Feeding

  • Dental decay in childhood and adulthood because the tongue cannot clean the teeth and spread saliva.
  • Possible changes in dentition with certain compensatory methods to propel bolus posteriorly for swallowing, such as finger sucking.
  • Open bite.
  • Snoring.
  • Drooling.
  • Messy eating.
  • Requiring frequent sips of liquid to wash down bolus.

On sharing my findings with a child’s caregivers and primary care physician, a pediatric dentist, oral surgeon or ENT will determine next steps for the frenectomy. Linda Murzyn-Dantzer at Children’s Hospital Colorado shared her insight on the use of laser treatment for frenectomies. She noted that the laser can be used safely in a clinic setting, eliminating the need for treatment under sedation or general anesthesia. The laser itself provides some analgesia and often there is minimal need for other anesthetics, which may not be well-tolerated and may compete for other cell receptors and influence oxygen levels.

The laser can help to control bleeding and stitches may not be required. The laser offers precision when cutting tissue, and if the patient moves even slightly, the controls allow the beam to be stopped almost instantly. Traditional surgical techniques are also an option and used in a variety of situations, but Dr. Murzyn-Dantzer chooses the use of a laser over electrocautery techniques that may overheat or burn tissue, affecting cell layers beneath the targeted tissue and causing post-operative discomfort and increased healing time.

 

Melanie Potock, MA, CCC-SLP, treats children, birth to teens, who have difficulty eating. She is the co-author of “Raising a Healthy, Happy Eater: A Parent’s Handbook—A Stage by Stage Guide to Setting Your Child on the Path to Adventurous Eating” (Oct. 2015), the author of “Happy Mealtimes with Happy Kids,” and the producer of the award-winning kids’ CD “Dancing in the Kitchen: Songs that Celebrate the Joy of Food!” 

Melanie@mymunchbug.com  

Apraxia Awareness Day: 10 Tips on Giving Kids With CAS a Voice

May 14 marks the third annual Apraxia Awareness Day, a movement headed by the Childhood Apraxia of Speech Association of North America (CASANA). The association’s motto—”Every Child Deserves a Voice”—entreats industry pros to correctly identify and treat kids with apraxia who may not develop intelligible speech. This is why apraxia awareness day is so important.

When I wrote the 10 Early Signs and Symptoms of Childhood Apraxia of Speech, many SLPs voiced their concern about how CAS is supposed to be a rare disorder and they are seeing over-diagnosis. Their concerns are valid. Current data, according to the ASHA portal, state that CAS occurs in every one to two children per 1,000. Over-diagnosis is a problem precipitated by factors that include:

  • Lack of clear and consistent diagnostic guidelines.
  • Lack of adequately validated diagnostic tools.
  • Professionals other than SLPs (pediatricians, neurologists) diagnosing CAS.
  • SLPs inadequately trained in diagnosis and treatment.

Over-diagnosis can cause families undue emotional stress and financial hardship. It also might divert important resources from those children who most need them.

According to research, children with CAS also often go undiagnosed if they truly DO have it! Differential diagnosis is critical with this disorder. Children not identified with CAS may struggle their entire lives and quite possibly not achieve intelligible speech without early and appropriate intervention. Consider that last line again: Without proper diagnosis and treatment, children with CAS may NOT achieve intelligible speech. This is what’s at stake!

awareness day

Apraxia awareness is crucial for professionals and families, so every child who has CAS gets the services he or she needs and deserves, regardless of how “rare” the disorder.

These children and parents rely on SLPs to be their heroes. So please, take time today—or soon—to learn more about childhood apraxia of speech. And if you suspect CAS in a client or student:

  • Seek out resources.
  • Attend a conference.
  • Listen in to a webinar.
  • Talk to and consult with your colleagues.
  • Wear blue and speak up for those who don’t yet have a voice.
  • Above all, be part of the solution.

These children and families are counting on you.

Having trouble getting reimbursed for CAS treatment? Read advice on making successful appeals.

And more resources to learn more about childhood apraxia of speech:

 

Laura Smith, MA, CCC-SLP, is a school-based and private clinician in the Denver metro area specializing in childhood apraxia of speech. She’s CASANA-certified for advanced training and clinical expertise in Childhood Apraxia of Speech and often speaks at conferences and consults for school districts or other professionals. Like her on Facebook, follow her on Pinterest, or visit her website at SLPMommyofApraxia.comlauraslpmommy@gmail.com

How Do You Know When it’s a Language Delay Versus a Disorder?

shutterstock_183205796

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a blog post that originally appeared on Special Education Guide. 

How do you know when it’s a language delay versus a disorder?

Unfortunately, there is not always a straightforward answer to this question. A language delay is just that—a delay in acquisition of language skills compared to one’s chronological and cognitive/intellectual age-peers. A young child with a language delay may exhibit a slower onset of a language skill, rate of progression through the acquisition process, sequence in which the language skills are learned, or all of the above.

However, there is a subset of children who continue to demonstrate persistent difficulties acquiring and using language skills below chronological age expectations (by preschool or school age) that cannot be explained by other factors (for example, low nonverbal intelligence, sensory impairments or autism spectrum disorder) and may be identified as having a specific language impairment (language disorder).

In contrast to a delay or a disorder is a language difference. With a language difference, communication behaviors meet the norms of the primary speech community but do not meet the norms of Standard English. This difference can exist whether the person in question is a child from a different country or simply from a different neighborhood in the same city.

So, what are some options for addressing language delays and disorders?

Intervention for a delay may take on several forms:

  • Indirect treatment and monitoring
    • Provide activities for parents and caregivers to engage in with the child, such as book-sharing and parent-child interaction groups.
    • Check in with the family periodically to monitor language development.
  • Direct intervention, including techniques such as:
    • Expansions—repeating the child’s utterance and adding grammatical and semantic detail.
    • Recasts—changing the mode or voice of the child’s original utterance (for example, declarative to interrogative).
    • Build-ups and breakdowns—the child’s utterance is expanded (built up) and then broken down into grammatical components (break down) and then built up again into its expanded form.

Intervention for a language disorder is child specific and based on that child’s current level of language functioning, profile of strengths and weaknesses, and functioning in related areas, including hearing, cognitive level and speech production skills. The overall goal of intervention is to stimulate language development and teach skills to enhance communication and access academic content. The developmental appropriateness and potential effectiveness on communication and academic and social success should be considered when developing treatment goals.

 

Aruna Hari Prasad, MA, CCC-SLP, is ASHA associate director of school services.  ahariprasad@asha.org

10 Early Signs and Symptoms of Childhood Apraxia of Speech

shutterstock_13245181

I was a practicing speech-language pathologist for five years before my daughter was born. I worked primarily at the elementary and middle-school levels. I took professional development workshops on childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and treated it successfully in three kiddos from my caseload. Perhaps that’s why I was bewildered, angry and utterly devastated when I missed those very signs in my own child.

I hadn’t yet worked in early intervention, so I missed what seem like obvious signs to me now that I specialize in the disorder. I urge all SLPs to learn more about CAS, because the disorder requires a specialized approach different from other commonly used treatments for speech and language delays.

In addition, ASHA denotes that the qualified professional to diagnose CAS is an SLP with specialized knowledge in motor learning theory and skills with differential diagnosis in childhood motor speech disorder, not a neurologist or other medical practitioner. It’s important to know the signs, but also to refer your client to a qualified SLP for differential diagnosis if you suspect childhood apraxia of speech.

Here are 10 early signs and symptoms of childhood apraxia of speech:

  • Limited babbling, or variation within babbling
  • Limited phonetic diversity
  • Inconsistent errors
  • Increased errors or difficulty with longer or more complex syllable and word shapes
  • Omissions, particularly in word initial syllable shapes
  • Vowel errors/distortions
  • Excessive, equal stress
  • Loss of previously produced words
  • More difficulty with volitional versus automatic speech responses
  • Predominant use of simple syllable shapes

Other non-speech “soft signs” that may be present include:

  • Impaired volitional oral movements (oral apraxia)
    • Difficulty with volitional “smiling” “kissing” “puckering”
  • Delays with fine/gross motor skills
  • Feeding difficulties that include choking and/or poor manipulation of food
  • General awkwardness or clumsiness

These are early signs, but many overlap with other phonologic and language delays, so it’s important to keep in mind that differential diagnosis is critical, as over-diagnosis of CAS remains problematic. It’s still a relatively rare disorder; however, there are resources that can help if you suspect it.

You can tap the below resources to learn more about childhood apraxia of speech.

 

Laura Smith, MA, CCC-SLP, is a school-based and private clinician in the Denver metro area specializing in childhood apraxia of speech. She’s CASANA-certified for advanced training and clinical expertise in Childhood Apraxia of Speech and often speaks at conferences and consults for school districts or other professionals. Like her on Facebook, follow her on Pinterest, or visit her website at SLPMommyofApraxia.comlauraslpmommy@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

Interprofessional Pre-screening Shortens the Wait for Autism Diagnoses

shutterstock_263936315

Editor’s Note: In recognition of Autism Awareness Month, we have several posts addressing autism-related issues throughout April. The screening program described here is one of several ASD initiatives at Wichita State University; another that eases children’s visits to the dentist is explored in this month’s April ASHA Leader issue.

 

Recently, I became passionate about expediting identification and diagnosis for young children who show signs and symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This desire was fueled by a research project I conducted with Douglas F. Parham and Jagadeesh Rajagopalan; the results revealed that pediatricians and family physicians have not been screening young children for ASD as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (regularly conducting ASD-specific screenings for children two times prior to their second birthday) in Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma.

Based on these results, I determined that one way I could help advance the identification of these young children would be to develop an authentic interprofessional education opportunity for students in the allied-health and education programs at my university: Wichita State University in Kansas. In the spring of 2012, WSU students, faculty and community professionals agreed to form the Wichita State University-Community Partners: Autism Interdisciplinary Diagnostic Team (AIDT).

The team aims to:

  1. Educate undergraduate and graduate students to better recognize the characteristics of ASD and to be able to participate in screening, assessment and referral of children who demonstrate early signs.
  2. Provide a highly needed service to children and families throughout south-central Kansas.

Since the initiation of this team, faculty, clinical educators and students from eight departments—communication sciences and disorders (audiology and speech-language pathology), early childhood unified special education, clinical psychology, physical therapy, dental hygiene, physician assistant, nursing and public health—have participated. Additionally, the University of Kansas School of Medicine–Wichita (represented by a developmental pediatrician and an advanced practice registered nurse) has been a valued partner and referral source.

Faculty and clinical educators recruit and select students to participate in our screening program. Student participants must enroll in a field-based experience and/or an appropriate class within their respective programs. All stakeholders then do a one-day training prior to the start of each semester on identifying the characteristics of ASD, to screen, to participate in the assessment process and to identify appropriate referrals for children and families. The educators agree to participate in at least four diagnostic sessions each semester, ensuring that students from various professions have multiple opportunities to work together, while observing interprofessional collaboration among university and community professionals.

The partnering developmental pediatrician and the advanced practice registered nurse refer children and families to the screening program based on the “red flag” characteristics parents report on the pediatrician’s developmental history form. The program’s coordinator (that’s me) contacts the family via phone to gather additional developmental information, and then the team meets to discuss that information and other relevant documents.

The team conducts the evaluation over two days. The first day, we assess the child’s communication, play and cognitive abilities, using selected tools and strategies based on the child’s strengths and needs. The second day, we administer the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2 and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale-Second Edition, Standard Version, to provide the developmental pediatrician with diagnosis-relevant information. We also conduct hearing, motor and oral health screenings. The team then meets to discuss the aggregated assessment results, which, in addition to appropriate recommendations and resources, are shared with the family.

We schedule an appointment for the child and family with the developmental pediatrician approximately one week following our assessment. Someone from our team accompanies the family to the appointment to act as a liaison and assist with the examination.

Since the introduction of the AIDT, 133 students, clinical educators, faculty and community professionals across 10 disciplines have come together via this individualized education program field-based experience. Our students and professionals have assessed 24 young children who present with characteristics of ASD, and approximately 85 percent of these children have received a confirming medical diagnosis.

Participants and families alike gain from this experience. Students learn from, with and among others who are committed to interprofessional practice. Families voice their appreciation for receiving diagnostic information from multiple disciplines all at once, so they don’t have to run from place to place to receive it.

Mostly, they value how quickly the AIDT’s work enables them to get their child needed help.

 

Trisha Self, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Wichita State University and coordinator of the school’s Community Partners: Autism Interdisciplinary Diagnostic Team. She is an affiliate of ASHA Special Interest Groups 1, Language Learning and Education; and 10, Issues in Higher Education.
Trisha.Self@wichita.edu 

Musings on the Funding of Stuttering Treatment

shutterstock_186528332

Editor’s Note: This post is another viewpoint on Speech Pathology Australia’s recent proposal and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of ASHA. 

Volunteer firefighters are not presently supported by government funding; instead they rely on local fundraising and private donations. Everyone values their work, and all agree that firefighters should be compensated.

The professional association for volunteer firefighters proposes to the government that payment be provided for their services. Due to demands on legislators’ time and attention, the association selects one method for putting out fires – water – and suggests that firefighters should be compensated when they use water to put out fires.

Many firefighters ask, “What do we do when water is not the best way to fight a particular fire?” They point out that other methods for fighting fires have been shown to work just as well as water. They are told that water has more data, and they don’t want to confuse the legislators with multiple options.

Some firefighters express concern that their input was not solicited before the proposal was submitted. They further worry that their options will be limited by such legislation. The association says, “You will not be limited in what you do—only in what you get paid for.” The firefighters ask, “Will we get paid if we use another method?” The answer: “You don’t get paid for anything now, so this will definitely be better.”

The firefighters persist, “Why not seek payment for the service of putting out fires, rather than a particular method?” The association says, “When other methods have as much data as water, we can consider approaching the legislators again, telling them that the issue was not as straightforward as we first suggested. We can ask then them to consider other methods…That would be simpler.”

The firefighters collect numerous comments from specialty firefighters and support organizations in opposition to the proposal. Despite the grass-roots opposition, the proposal proceeds as originally written and is accepted. Volunteer firefighters start to receive government payment for one approach to fighting fires. Those who favor that approach are delighted. Others weren’t being paid before anyway, so nothing changes for them, at least not at first.

Soon, homeowners start to call the fire department to ask, “Does your department use water? I heard that you get paid for water. I want you to get paid, but I don’t want to pay myself. Plus, I read on a professional association’s website that water is ‘best!’” Thus, market forces drive firefighters to use water exclusively, although many know that there are other helpful approaches.

One day, a water-using firefighter finds himself working a fire against which water does not appear to help. He wonders if he should use some other approach in conjunction with—or instead of—water. Other firefighters have long used the method of changing the draft pattern in the house, but that method is not approved for payment. If he does it, his services will no longer be covered. He hesitates.

What is better for the homeowner? For the firefighter? Should he do what he knows is right for the house or what he gets paid for?

Ultimately, he decides that he should only respond to fires that can be put out with water. Other firefighters can deal with more complicated fires. It’s up to them if they don’t want to get paid?

Why has the firefighter been put in this ethical dilemma?

It all could have been avoided if only the professional association had pursued coverage for the service of fighting fires, not the specific treatment that they favored.

But that would evidently have been too complicated…

 

J. Scott Yaruss, PhD, CCC-SLP, is an affiliate of ASHA Special Interest Group 4, Fluency and Fluency Disorders. He is also associate professor and director of graduate programs in speech-language pathology at the University of Pittsburgh, coordinator of clinical research in audiology and speech-language pathology at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and director of the Stuttering Center of Western Pennsylvania. He can be reached at jsyaruss@pitt.edu.

Another View on Speech Pathology Australia’s Stuttering Treatment Proposal

shutterstock_191501849

Editor’s Note: This post is a follow-up to yesterday’s post from Craig Coleman regarding a controversial proposal on stuttering treatment and reimbursement from Speech Pathology Australia. We reached out for responses from Ann Packman and Mark Onlsow, two of the originators of the Lidcombe approach to stuttering treatment—on which the SPA proposal centers. We also reached out to SPA and include a statement here from SPA President Deborah Theodoros.

Response from Ann Packman and Mark Onslow:

During the past two decades the Australian government has invested millions of dollars in research funding to develop an evidence-based treatment for early stuttering. The Lidcombe Program is a result of this funding and is now supported by strong evidence from randomized controlled trials. Those randomized trials include evidence for face-to-face treatment, for treatment using webcam, and for group treatment. The Speech Pathology Australia proposal is for our government to further invest in the health of Australian children who stutter, but in a more direct way by contributing to the cost of their treatment.

We wish to clarify that the Speech Pathology Australia proposal is not for a mandate—a directive—that Australian speech pathologists must use the Lidcombe Program to treat preschool children who stutter. Nor is it a proposal to overturn customary evidence-based reasoning and standardize how Australian preschoolers who stutter in Australia are managed. Nor is there any suggestion that the Australian government would not in the future fund any other evidence-based intervention that is supported by randomized controlled trials. Indeed, if such evidence emerges for the efficacy of another treatment for early stuttering, we would encourage Speech Pathology Australia to approach the Australian government to consider it also for taxpayer-assisted support.

 

Message from Deborah Theodoros, president, SPA:

Speech Pathology Australia is advocating for public funding (Medicare) rebates for early stuttering intervention at a level which is demonstrated to be highly efficacious and supported by the strongest level of evidence. However, SPA is not suggesting any policy or legislation which would restrict interventions to one program over another or would require a speech pathologist to use a specific treatment, intervention or service. SPA continues to strongly support the principle of practice that speech pathologists remain free, and duty-bound, to exercise their clinical decision-making in relation to the interventions they provide to clients.

 

Ann Packman, PhD, SLP, is associate professor and senior research officer for the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney. She has more than 30 years’ experience in the area of stuttering as a clinician, teacher and researcher and researches nature and treatment of stuttering. Packman recently served as associate editor for fluency for the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and is associate editor for fluency for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Packman is an international affiliate of ASHA. She can be reached at ann.packman@sydney.edu.au.

Mark Onslow, PhD, SLP, is the foundation director of the Australian Stuttering Research Centre, The University of Sydney. He was a principal research fellow of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Onslow’s research interests are the epidemiology of early stuttering in preschoolers, mental health of those who stutter, measurement of stuttering, and the nature and treatment of stuttering. He is a member of the international Lidcombe Program Trainers Consortium. Onslow is an international affiliate of ASHA. He can be reached at mark.onslow@sydney.edu.au.

Deborah Theodoros, PhD, SLP, national president of Speech Pathology Australia, is also professor and head of the division of speech pathology in the University of Queensland’s School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. She is a founder and co-director of the multidisciplinary Telerehabilitation Research Unit in the school and past chair of the Telerehabilitation Special Interest Group of the American Telemedicine Association. She can be reached at president@speechpathologyaustralia.org.au.

 

 

A Controversial Proposal on Stuttering Treatment from Speech Pathology of Australia: What It Means and What Happens Next

shutterstock_204038680

Editor’s note: This blog post was submitted by ASHA member Craig Coleman and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of ASHA. Here is the original release from Speech Pathology Australia that spurred Coleman to submit this post. It was published in the February 2015 issue of SPA’s publication Speak Out:

Speech Pathology Australia recently submitted a proposal to the Australian Government Department of Treasury for the federal budget 2015-2016. Given the difficult political and budgetary climate, and in anticipation of a government response to the recommendations made from the Senate inquiry—the budget proposal focused on a single budget initiative.

We argue that Medicare should be targeted towards health interventions that are evidence-based, effective, safe and minimise future health treatment needs. Our proposal focused on an internationally recognised intervention, developed in Australia and based on the most robust scientific evidence of effectiveness—the Lidcombe Program—to treat stuttering in young Australian children.

Tomorrow, we will run a post on this proposal from two of the originators of the Lidcombe approach, Mark Onslow and Ann Packman, along with a statement from the president of SPA, Deborah Theodoros. We encourage your comments on this issue, which you can post below this post from Coleman.

 

Recently, Speech Pathology Australia (the national speech-language pathology association of Australia) submitted a proposal to the Australian Government Department of Treasury that would require Medicare rebates be made available for children who stutter, but only if they are treated using the Lidcombe Program.

I feel this action gravely limits the scope of treatment for stuttering. Many interventions for preschool stuttering have shown to be effective. What happens when a child receives treatment with the Lidcombe program and doesn’t make progress? Does the child have other treatment options? From this proposal, it would appear that is not the case.

How are new (and perhaps more effective) treatment approaches expected to emerge when only treatment with an existing evidence-base is funded? Imagine if all infections were still treated using penicillin because it was an early treatment option. Would the government and medical associations support such a position? Perhaps a clearer question is would pharmaceutical industry lobbyists allow legislators to even remotely consider the idea? Do we think less of ourselves as a profession to allow this to happen?

This proposal also highlights a concerning trend of what constitutes “evidence.” While certain treatments might have more data than others it doesn’t always mean that treatment is more effective. Evidence-based practice includes current scientific evidence, clinician experience and client /family values. What if the clinician is not properly trained in the treatment approach? What if the personality of the client, family or clinician is not a good fit for one particular approach? Surely, the best “evidence” comes not from group data, but the individualized outcome of each client we serve. While group data certainly present scientific evidence, individual outcomes present actual evidence-based practice. That type of data takes into account all aspects of the evidence-based practice triangle.

After this precedent has been established, we would be naïve to think this could not happen with other disorders in all parts of the world. This is not an issue for the stuttering community of Australia to deal with. It is an issue for the speech-language-hearing community of the world to deal with.

So, where do we go from here? Here is a potential plan I would like to suggest:

  1. Advocate for reimbursement for stuttering. The state of reimbursement for stuttering treatment in the United States can best be described as dire. One of our missions as SLPs should be to work with insurance providers and demand that they pay for stuttering treatment. Somewhere along the way, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate that stuttering treatment should not be reimbursed. We must reverse that trend.
  2. Create a consortium of professionals. This would allow a database of treatment outcomes to be collected from clinicians in the field. Not only would this help with reimbursement, but it would also allow publication of data collected from individualized treatment approaches. We are professionals, not technicians. Our clients deserve better than “follow-the-manual” based programs and protocols.
  3. We need to educate our professionals and the public about stuttering. Stuttering is not merely a disruption in the flow of speech. It is much more than that.

As concerning as this proposal is, it can be a positive if we choose to act with reason, courage and passion.

In order to provide both sides of the discussion, I am including a recent statement from Speech Pathology Australia. While this statement seeks to clarify that this is not an endorsement of one approach, advocating for reimbursement for only one approach certainly seems to send the opposite message. Many insurance companies will not pay for stuttering treatment here in the United States. But responding to that by supporting a policy that would cover only one approach would be very dangerous and erroneous.

It is also important to understand that once Medicare programs establish a policy, private payers soon follow suit. It’s very naive to believe this policy won’t have major negative ramifications in the long run. While it may benefit some children in the short term, there is no doubt in my mind it will not benefit people who stutter or our profession in the long term.

You can read Coleman’s original blog post in full here.

 

Craig E. Coleman, MA, CCC-SLP, is an assistant professor at Marshall University and a board-certified specialist in fluency disorders. Coleman is also an adjunct instructor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Stuttering U. summer program for children who stutter, their families and SLPs. He is coordinator of ASHA Special Interest Group 4, Fluency and Fluency Disorders. He can be reached at craig.coleman@marshall.edu

Just Flip the Lip! The Upper Lip-tie and Feeding Challenges

shutterstock_121795222

While many pediatric professionals are familiar with a tongue-tie, the illusive lip-tie hides in plain sight beneath the upper lip. Because I focus on feeding difficulties in children and an upper lip-tie can be a contributing factor if a child has trouble feeding, then I probably encounter more lip-ties than some of my colleagues. Still, I’d like to encourage my fellow SLPs to just flip the lip of every single kiddo whenever assessing the oral cavity. And document what you observe. Help increase general knowledge among professionals on different types of upper lip-ties by raising awareness of how they may impact the developmental process of feeding.

Upper lip-ties refer to the band of tissue or “frenum” that attaches the upper lip to the maxillary gingival tissue (upper gums) at midline. Although most babies should have a frenum that attaches to some degree to the maxillary arch, the degree of restriction varies. So it’s important to flip the lip of every child we evaluate in order to gain a better understanding of the spectrum of restriction – especially if you are an SLP who treats pediatric feeding.

During the feeding evaluation process, consider four things: 1) The mobility of the upper lip for breast, bottle, spoon and finger feeding; 2) How well it functions in the process of latching and maintaining the latch; 3) If the lip provides the necessary stability for efficient and effective suck-swallow-breath coordination; and 4) If the lip is an effective tool for cleaning a spoon, manipulating foods in the mouth and contributing to a mature swallow pattern.

Dentist Lawrence A. Kotlow has created an upper lip-tie classification system to better identify, describe and consider the need for treatment. The tie is classified according to where the frenum connects the lip to the gums, known as “insertion points.” Envision a child with a very big “gummy” smile and the upper gum line exposed. Divide the gums into three zones, as described in this article by Kotlow:

“The soft tissue covering the maxillary bone is divided into 3 zones. The tissue just under the nasal area (zone 1) is called the free gingival area; this tissue is movable. Zone 2 tissue is attached to the bone and has little freedom of movement… Zone 3 extends into the area between the teeth and is known as the interdental papilla. This is where the erupting central incisors will position themselves at around 6 months of age.”

Now, consider the insertion points. A Class I lip-tie inserts in Zone I and (unless extremely short and tight) does not inhibit movement of the upper lip and should not interfere with breast or bottle feeding. However, if the lip itself is retracted to the degree that a child cannot flange his upper lip for adequate latching and for maintaining suction, further consideration of this type of lip tie may be necessary. Class II lip-ties have an insertion point in Zone 2, where the tissue is attached to the bone. Kotlow describes the Class III tie as inserting in Zone 3, where “the frenum inserts between the areas where the maxillary central incisors will erupt, just short of attaching into the anterior incisor.”  A Class IV lip-tie “involves the lip-tie wrapping into the hard palate and into the anterior papilla (a small bump located just behind where the central incisor will erupt).”

How might an upper lip-tie impact the developmental process of feeding?

The impact of the upper lip-tie can vary according to its classification and, in my professional experience, the fullness of the upper lip also comes into play. But, in general, consider these key points:

Breastfeeding and Bottle Feeding

  • Breast – Inadequate latch: An infant must flange the lips to create enough suction and adequate seal around the tissue that includes the areola and not just the nipple. It is essential that babies take in enough breast tissue to activate the suckling reflex, stimulating both the touch receptors in the lips and in the posterior oral cavity in order to extract enough milk without fatiguing. When the baby suckles less tissue, painful nursing is also a result. One sign (not always present) is a callus on baby’s upper lip, directly at midline. While not always an indicator of a problem, it’s typically associated with an upper lip-tie. It’s simply a reminder to flip the lip!
  • Bottle – Inadequate Seal: Because bottles and nipple shapes are interchangeable and adaptations can be made, it’s possible to compensate for poor lip seal. However, these compensatory strategies are often introduced because all attempts at breastfeeding became too painful, too frustrating or result in poor weight gain…and the culprit all along was the upper lip-tie. It is then assumed that the baby can only bottle feed. I’ve assessed too many children held by teary-eyed mothers who reported difficulty with breast feeding – and no indication in the chart notes that the child had an upper lip-tie. But, upon oral examination, the lip-tie was indeed present and when observing the child’s feeding skills, the tie was at the very least a contributing factor. Releasing the tie resulted in improved ability to breast feed and progress with solids.
  • In addition, an inadequate latch and/or a poor lip seal may contribute to the following partial list of symptoms:
    • Gassiness; fussiness; “colicky baby”
    • Treatment for gastroesophogeal reflux disease, yet to be confirmed via testing
    • Fatigue resulting in falling asleep at the breast
    • Discomfort for both baby and mother, resulting in shorter feedings
    • Need for more frequent feedings round the clock
    • Poor coordination of suck, swallow, breathe patterns
    • Inability to take a pacifier, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and noted here.

Spoon Feeding

  1. Inability to clean the spoon with the top lip
  2. Inadequate caloric intake due to inefficiency and fatigue
  3. Tactile oral sensitivity secondary to limited stimulation of gum tissue hidden beneath the tie
  4. Lip restriction may influence swallowing patterns and cause compensatory motor movements which may lead to additional complications

Finger Feeding

  1. Inability to manipulate food with top lip for biting, chewing and swallowing
  2. Possible development of picky, hesitant or selective eating because eating certain foods are challenging
  3. Lip restriction may influence swallowing patterns and using compensatory strategies (e.g. sucking in the cheeks to propel food posteriorly to be swallowed) which may lead to additional complications

Oral Hygiene & Dental Issues

  1. Early dental decay on upper teeth where milk residue and food is often trapped
  2. Significant gap between front teeth
  3. Periodontal disease in adulthood
  4. Possible changes in dentition with certain compensatory methods to propel bolus posteriorly for swallowing, such as finger sucking.

After documenting what we observe during the evaluation, clear communication with parents and other professionals will help to determine next steps. In feeding therapy, our role is to provide information for involved parents and professionals (this may include pediatricians, lactation consultants, otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, oral surgeons and/or pediatric dentists). Our primary role is to determine, document and communicate to what degree the restricted top lip is influencing a child’s difficulty feeding.

For detailed information and additional photos, please read Kotlow’s article, Diagnosing and Understanding the Maxillary Lip-tie as it Relates to Breastfeeding, published in the Journal of Human Lactation in May 2013.

In a future post for ASHA, we’ll discuss tongue-ties (ankyloglossia) and the impact on feeding. Upper-lip ties are frequently associated with tongue-ties, so please remember to look for both during oral examinations.

Have you had an experience with an upper lip-tie impacting the feeding progress of one of your clients? If so, please tell us in the comments below.

 

Melanie Potock, MA, CCC-SLPtreats children birth to teens who have difficulty eating.  She is the co-author of Raising a Healthy, Happy Eater: A Parent’s Handbook – A Stage by Stage Guide to Setting Your Child on the Path to Adventurous Eating (Oct. 2015), the author of Happy Mealtimes with Happy Kids and the producer of the award-winning kids’ CD Dancing in the Kitchen: Songs that Celebrate the Joy of Food!  Melanie’s two-day course on pediatric feeding is offered for ASHA CEUs.  She can be reached at Melanie@mymunchbug.com

 

Snow Day Recap

AugustSnowman

It’s a snow day here at ASHA and for many of our members on the East Coast. So whether (pun intended!) you’re snowed in or not, curl up with some of our most popular posts from 2014 in this compilation published earlier this year.

 

From stuttering to aphasia, hearing loss to hearing aids, early intervention to telepractice and more, ASHA’s blog posts are written by you—our members—sharing knowledge with peers on a variety of subjects. But there’s no doubt about it, pediatric feeding has been the topic on ASHAsphere in 2014!

Check out your five favorite posts from last year:

Step Away From the Sippy Cup!

SLP Melanie Potock specializes in pediatric feeding and explains that sippy cups were created to keep floors clean, not as a tool to be used for developing oral motor skills.

“Sippy cups were invented for parents, not for kids. The next transition from breast and/or bottle is to learn to drink from an open cup held by an adult in order to limit spills or to learn to drink from a straw cup. Once a child transitions to a cup with a straw, I suggest cutting down the straw so that the child can just get his lips around it, but can’t anchor his tongue underneath it.” – Potock

Baby Led Weaning: A Developmental Perspective

For parents interested in following the Baby Led Weaning (BLW) philosophy of pediatric feeding, which states that babies are developmentally capable of reaching for food and putting it in their mouths at about 6 months of age, SLP Melanie Potock shares some thoughts to consider.

“For children in feeding therapy, incorporating some aspects of BLW is dependent on that child’s individual delays or challenges and where they are in the developmental process, regardless of chronological age. My primary concern for any child is safety—be aware and be informed, while respecting each family’s mealtime culture.” – Potock

Collaboration Corner: 10 Easy Tips for Parents to Support Language

Paying attention to body language, reading every day and using pictures are just a few tips SLP Kerry Davis shares with parents to support their child’s language development.

“Take pictures of your child’s day and talk about what is coming up next, or make a photo album of fun activities (vacation, going out for ice cream) to talk about.” – Davis

What SLPs Need to Know About the Medical Side of Pediatric Feeding

To overcome pediatric feeding problems, SLP Krisi Brackett explains the importance of first figuring out why the child’s in a food rut.

“Whether the child is dependent on tube feedings, not moving to textured foods, grazing on snack foods throughout the day, failing to thrive, pocketing foods or spitting foods out, using medical management strategies can greatly improve a child’s success in feeding therapy.” – Brackett

Preventing Food Jags: What’s a Parent to Do?

For kids who only eat a limited number of foods, it can be difficult for parents to provide the right nutrition for their kids. SLP Melanie Potock shares her top 10 suggestions for preventing food jag.

“Food Left on the Plate is NOT Wasted: Even if it ends up in the compost, the purpose of the food’s presence on a child’s plate is for him to see it, smell it, touch it, hear it crunch under his fork and  perhaps, taste it.  So if the best he can do is pick it up and chat with you about the properties of green beans, then hurray!  That’s never a waste, because he’s learning about a new food.” – Potock

 

ASHA always welcomes new blog contributers. Interested? Apply to here become an ASHAsphere blogger.

Sara Mischo is the web producer at ASHA. She can be reached at smischo@asha.org.