Speech language pathology (SLP) clinical bedside swallowing assessments (CBSA) are a cornerstone of quality care for patients in acute hospitals who have dysphagia. The CBSA informs clinical diagnosis and decisions regarding further instrumental assessment, and is used to develop a management plan and monitor progress. However, self-report and retrospective research shows that SLPs are highly variable in their use of assessment components considered by experts to be important for quality CBSA, casting doubt on the validity and reliability of CBSA. This prospective study describes the components included by SLPs when designing a standardised evidence based dysphagia assessment protocol for acute care patients and observed patterns of component use. The findings confirm that SLPs use the CBSA for multiple purposes beyond diagnosis of aspiration risk and dysphagia presence/severity. They are highly variable in their use of certain components, but also demonstrate consistent use of a core set. It is apparent that SLPs prioritise the application of clinical reasoning to tailor their CBSA to the patient over following a highly structured item-based protocol. The variability in component use likely reflects a complex clinical reasoning process that draws on a wide variety of information combined with expert knowledge as is also observed in many other medical specialties. Rather than promoting the standardisation of CBSA protocols that constrain SLP practice to strict item-based assessment protocols, consideration should be given to promoting the value and facilitating the clinical reasoning process that supports the utility of the CBSA for diagnosis, patient centred management and treatment planning.
Pettigrew CM, O’Toole C. Dysphagia evaluation practices of speech and language therapists in Ireland: clinical assessment and instrumental examination decision-making. Dysphagia. 2007;22:235–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Leder SB, Suiter DM (2014) The Yale swallow protocol: an evidence-based approach to decision-making. Springer, Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05113-0.
Martino R, Silver F, Teasell R, Bayley M, Nicholson G, Streiner DL, Diamant NE. The Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST): development and validation of a dysphagia screening tool for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2009;40:555–61. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.510370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mann G. MASA: the mann assessment of swallowing ability. New York: Singular; 2002.Google Scholar
Blauer SR, Bally K, Tschudi P, Martina B, Zeller A. Acute cough illness in general practice—predictive value of clinical judgement and accuracy of requesting chest X-rays. Praxis. 2013;102:1287–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (2007) National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Australian Government, Canberra. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72. Accessed 15 March 2016.
World Medical Association. World Medical association declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills E, Nimmo L. Speech pathology acute adult dysphagia management competency training programme. Adelaide: Adelaide Local Health Networks; 2012.Google Scholar
Carnaby G. Importance of a clinical exam/cranial nerve assessment. Perspect Swallow Disord Dysphagia. 2012;21:143–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govaerts MJ, van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Muijtjens AM. Broadening perspectives on clinical performance assessment: rethinking the nature of in-training assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:239–60. doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9043-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh J, Flynn R, Long AF, Tyson S. Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: a case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:183–94. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar