Implications of Variability in Clinical Bedside Swallowing Assessment Practices by Speech Language Pathologists

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Eslick G, Talley N. Dysphagia: epidemiology, risk factors and impact on quality of life—a population-based study. Aliment Pharm Ther. 2008;27:971–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Altman K, Yu G, Schaefer S. Consequence of dysphagia in the hospitalized patient. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136:784–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Marsh K, Bertranou E, Suominen H, Venkatachalam M. An economic evaluation of speech and language therapy. London: Matrix Evidence; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carnaby-Mann G, Lenius K. The bedside examination in dysphagia. Phy Med Rehabil Cli. 2008;19:747–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Speyer R. Oropharyngeal dysphagia: screening and assessment. Otolaryng Clin N Am. 2013;46:989–1008. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2013.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Speech Pathology Australia. Clinical guideline: dysphagia. Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mathers-Schmidt BA, Kurlinski M. Dysphagia evaluation practices: inconsistencies in clinical assessment and instrumental examination decision-making. Dysphagia. 2003;18:114–25. doi:10.1007/s00455-002-0094-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Martino R, Pron G, Diamant NE. Oropharyngeal dysphagia: surveying practice patterns of the speech-language pathologist. Dysphagia. 2004;19:165–76. doi:10.1007/s00455-004-0004-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bateman C, Leslie P, Drinnan MJ. Adult dysphagia assessment in the UK and Ireland: are SLTs assessing the same factors? Dysphagia. 2007;22:174–86. doi:10.1007/s00455-006-9070-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Vogels B, Cartwright J, Cocks N. The bedside assessment practices of speech-language pathologists in adult dysphagia. Int J Speech LangPathol. 2015;17:390–400. doi:10.3109/17549507.2014.979877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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.

  13. 13.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mann G. MASA: the mann assessment of swallowing ability. New York: Singular; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Daniels SK, Anderson JA, Willson PC. Valid items for screening dysphagia risk in patients with stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2012;43:892–7. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.640946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gonzalez-Fernandez M, Sein MT, Palmer JB. Clinical experience using the mann assessment of swallowing ability for identification of patients at risk for aspiration. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011;20:331–6. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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.

  19. 19.

    World Medical Association. World Medical association declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mills E, Nimmo L. Speech pathology acute adult dysphagia management competency training programme. Adelaide: Adelaide Local Health Networks; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Carnaby G. Importance of a clinical exam/cranial nerve assessment. Perspect Swallow Disord Dysphagia. 2012;21:143–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Schmidt HG, Rikers RM. How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Med Educ. 2007;41:1133–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02915.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Crosskerry A. A universal model of clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2009;84:1022–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Norman G, Young M, Brooks L. Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: the role of experience. Med Educ. 2007;41:1140–5. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02914.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Charlin B, Boshuizen HP, Custers EJ, Feltovich PJ. Scripts and clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2007;41:1178–84. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02924.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Norman G. Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ. 2005;39:418–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Benner PA, Tanner CA, Chesla CA. Expertise in nursing practice: caring, clinical judgment, and ethics. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Measure. 2002;3(1):85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R, Tyson S. ‘It’s hard to tell’: the challenges of scoring patients on standardised outcome measures by multidisciplinary teams: a case study of neurorehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:217. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-217.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our grateful thanks to our speech language pathology colleagues for their support and diligent participation in this research.

This research was conducted without financial support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue McAllister.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix 1: Speech Pathology Initial Dysphagia Assessment (SPIDA) Proforma

Appendix 1: Speech Pathology Initial Dysphagia Assessment (SPIDA) Proforma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McAllister, S., Kruger, S., Doeltgen, S. et al. Implications of Variability in Clinical Bedside Swallowing Assessment Practices by Speech Language Pathologists. Dysphagia 31, 650–662 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9724-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deglutition
  • Deglutition disorders
  • Clinical bedside assessment
  • Clinical reasoning
  • Dysphagia
  • Validity