SP 2030 Final Report low res

44 / 52

36
friends, colleagues, and community groups. For some clients,
this meant focusing speech pathology efforts on building the
capacity of the community rather than on their individual skills.
A wide range of flexible delivery modes became available,
including Skype, telephone, web-based platforms, remote
or face-to-face partnering with other clients who had similar
needs, as well as collaborative approaches across professions.
Government responses to client feedback meant funding
models were flexible to respond to these different approaches.
Increasingly the context for receiving speech pathology
services moved beyond one-to-one, clinic-based practice.
Services were delivered in neighbourhood centres, libraries,
in whole class groups, in day-to-day activities with family and
friends, and within places of employment across the country.
This resulted in the profession becoming more visible in the
community, which in turn contributed to growing interest in
participation in the field.
Maximising the return from every available research dollar and
rapid translation of research outcomes into practice change
were now more critical than they had ever been. This was a
stimulus for a significant increase in research collaborations
across professions, and between researchers and practitioners
from across the public, private and not-for-profit sectors.
Research funding bodies routinely included clients in their
selection panels and a number also established mechanisms
for clients to contribute ideas regarding innovation and
feedback on research priorities. This information was made
widely available to the research community. Speech pathology
researchers began to actively include clients in their research
design process, submission writing, and implementation—a
move that proved powerful in securing research grants.
Research outcomes began to reflect the improvements to
practice valued by clients.
What if…
What if awareness of the depth and breadth of the
speech pathology role does not improve?
• Will the profession narrow its approaches
to well-known areas of practice?
• What will this mean for emerging areas and
innovation in the profession?
What if the government moves to only fund
practice with a strong evidence-base?
• How can the profession ready itself for this
scenario?
• How can niche areas of practice be
maintained?
What if clients are able to dictate exactly the type
of service they want?
• Will the speech pathology provider market
be able to respond?
• What does this mean for balancing
evidence-based practice with client
preferences?
• What needs to change about current
service delivery approaches to
accommodate this?
What if clients and communities are key
influencers of public funding priorities and
research agendas?
• What are the opportunities and what are
the risks?
• How can the profession partner better
with clients and communities to influence
funding for speech pathology practice and
research agendas?