Development of International Terminology and Definitions for Texture-Modified Foods and Thickened Fluids Used in Dysphagia Management: The IDDSI Framework

The current practice survey yielded responses from 2050 participants representing 33 countries. The majority of responses came from Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of respondents by stakeholder group. Eighty percent of health professionals who responded saw adults with dysphagia, 8.2% saw children with dysphagia, and 16.5% saw a mixed caseload. Health professionals predominantly saw individuals in hospital settings (>60%) and approximately one quarter saw individuals in the community or aged care settings.

Open image in new window

Healthcare professional respondents reported use of both site-prepared and commercial ready-to-use modified products. This was particularly true with respect to the preparation of texture-modified foods, for which fewer than 1% reported exclusive use either of commercial or on-site preparation methods. For drinks, exclusive use of commercially pre-thickened drinks was reported by 17% of respondents who had pediatric caseloads, and 30% of respondents whose caseloads included adults or a mix of adults and children. Exclusive in-house preparation of thickened drinks was more common for those working with pediatric caseloads (46%) compared to 30% for those working with adults or mixed caseloads.

The survey responses showed that some terms were not commonly used or familiar in all countries. For example, the terms “pudding,” “minced,” and “nectar” while understood by respondents from western cultures were not understood by respondents from Asia. Some currently used terms were considered to be problematic for certain populations. For example, it was noted that in the pediatric population and specifically children under 12 months of age, ‘honey from bees’ is contraindicated due to botulism risk. Thus, use of the term ‘honey thick’ was not felt to be an appropriate label for liquids served to pediatric populations. In addition, comments suggested that perceptions of honey differ considerably, as honey comes in crystalline, thick, and thin runny forms. Color coding was reported to be the most commonly used schema (53%) for differentiating different levels of thickened drinks or texture-modified foods; however, there was no congruency in colors chosen.

Of the respondents to the healthcare and food service professional stakeholder survey, 41 and 43%, respectively, reported that they test the consistency of foods and drinks to confirm suitability prior to serving. Consistency testing was more common among patients and caregivers, of whom, 57 and 60% reported testing foods and drinks, respectively. Visual inspection or observation was the most commonly used method of testing, regardless of stakeholder type. Patients, caregivers, and health professionals also reported using a spoon drop test or a utensil such as a fork for testing foods and liquids. Industry respondents, however, were most likely to assess liquids using a viscometer, Bostwick consistometer, or rheometer, in conjunction with visual inspection. For foods, industry respondents reported use of a texture analyzer, sieve, Bostwick consistometer, and visual inspection.

The draft framework resulting from the 2015 face-to-face meeting was represented as a continuum of 8 levels with foods and liquids displayed on a single scale using a twin-pyramid design showing foods in the top, inverted pyramid and liquids in the bottom, standing pyramid (see Fig. 4). The decision to use the pyramid image was partly influenced by the fact that a pyramid was already in use nationally in Japan for dysphagia diets. In addition to making decisions about the pyramid graphic, the number of levels, and the numbering scheme, the committee chose a draft color scheme with the aim of making each color as distinguishable as possible. It was decided that the color red should be avoided, given that red is frequently used as a color to denote alarm and danger in medical contexts and may also have other symbolism in some cultures.

Open image in new window

A novel feature of the draft framework was the decision to recognize that certain food textures shared flow properties with thickened liquids creating an overlap zone in the middle of the framework. Using the same numbers to refer to both food and drink items at these levels, recognized the shared flow properties of these textures. Specifically, Level 3 was used both for Liquidized foods and Moderately Thick fluids, while Level 4 was used both for Pureed food and Extremely Thick fluids. All other levels had distinct flow or texture properties.

The committee developed detailed definitions for each level of the draft Framework, based on (a) the measurement activities conducted at the 2015 face-to-face meeting; (b) drawing from descriptors in all available national standards documents; and (c) the literature describing properties that increase risk for choking [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. The draft definitions included a warning after Level 6 to clarify that the physiological skills of being able to both bite and chew food were required to safely transition to Level 7 Regular foods. Physiological contraindications for advancing to Level 7 were listed, such as xerostomia, requirement for dentures, difficulty managing mixed textures, impulsive behavior, cognitive impairment, delayed oral skills (dentition, chewing development), and fatigue (impaired strength or stamina). A level that was tentatively titled ‘Level 7 Minus’ was included to capture food textures that are hard in their original state but break down quickly with moisture or temperature change and can then be manipulated with minimal chewing or just with tongue pressure.

Formal assessment of food texture commonly requires complex and expensive machinery, such as Food Texture Analyzers. This type of assessment was rejected as a practical measurement option given the lack of access to food texture analyzers and expertise or interpretation. The draft framework did not include quantitative methods for testing food texture, although the committee agreed that a method to distinguish food into the various categories was highly desirable. Subsequent to stakeholder feedback on the draft framework the committee developed practical quantitative methods for testing food size and texture (see “Final IDDSI Framework” in “Results” for more details).

The draft framework was submitted to international stakeholder consultation with a total of 3190 respondents residing in 57 different countries. The majority of respondents (87%) were health professionals working with dysphagia, although responses were also collected from caterers providing food to people with dysphagia, researchers/academics, industry that provides products to people with dysphagia, professional associations, government/regulatory bodies, caregivers to persons with dysphagia, and persons with dysphagia. Ninety percent of respondents came from English-speaking backgrounds and predominantly northern hemisphere countries. Fifty-three percent of respondents indicated that they or their organization were likely to implement the framework, with 28% neutral (see Fig. 5). Fewer than 19% of respondents indicated that implementation of the framework was unlikely.

Open image in new window

Feedback regarding the colors representing the different food textures and thickened drink levels showed that they were considered easy to distinguish from each other and easy to implement. The number of levels was considered by more than two-thirds of respondents to be ‘about right’ and response to the twin-pyramid design was positive. Eighty percent of respondents rated the relevance and amount of information in the detailed definitions as ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’ Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that the description of the syringe test was easy to understand. Clinicians who treated pediatric populations and people with developmental disability confirmed the need to have a category that included ‘meltable’ or ‘dissolvable’ solid foods. Forty percent of respondents agreed with the inclusion of Level 7 Minus with the same number neutral regarding its inclusion. The survey consultants (ASR) recommended that IDDSI review the framework based on the feedback received and make adjustments. This process of review and discussion occurred between June and November 2015.

The final framework is shown in Fig. 6. Notable changes from the draft to the final framework included delineation of the ‘transitional foods’ side-bar category to replace ‘Level 7 minus,’ changes to the color scheme and the inclusion of specific testing methods for foods.

Open image in new window

The label ‘Level 7 Minus’ was deleted from the framework and replaced with the term ‘Transitional foods,’ running alongside Levels 5–7 on the inverted food pyramid. This location reflects the fact that transitional foods are regular foods (Level 7) with special textural properties such that with the application of moisture (e.g., saliva) or a change in temperature, they rapidly change their texture, crossing boundaries between levels. The colors were reviewed in detail and assessed for suitability for people with color blindness (e.g., protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia and monochromatism) to distinguish the framework colors. Based on the review, certain colors were changed to maximize the difference in color between neighboring levels. The final scheme has six colors plus black and white that are individually distinguishable across all the different types of color blindness tested and particularly for red blind and green blind, which is the most common variant [45]. Specifically, Level 0 is white; Level 1 is gray; Level 2 is pink; Level 3 is yellow; Level 4 is green; Level 5 is orange; Level 6 is blue; and Level 7 is black.

The systematic review demonstrated that the properties of hardness, cohesiveness, and slipperiness were important factors for consideration [27, 28]. In addition, as noted in the initial publication documenting the need for a new international framework, the size and shape of food samples have been identified as relevant factors for choking risk [26]. In view of this information, the IDDSI committee agreed that measurement of foods needed to capture both the mechanical properties (e.g., hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, etc.) and the geometrical, size, or shape attributes of the food. Prior to release of the final framework, the committee worked to develop specifications based on the best available practical tools: the surveys had reported that utensils such as forks and spoons were commonly used for assessment of texture-modified food and thickened liquids. Assessments using chopsticks and finger tests have also been incorporated in recognition that these may be the most accessible methods in some countries.

Assessment of foods requires a combination of evaluation for particle size and food hardness, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness. With regard to particle size, 2–4 mm represents the size of chewed particles that healthy adult individuals naturally masticate and reduce hard foods to for swallowing [47]. For Level 5 Minced & Moist, the recommended particle size for food served to adults is 4 mm. In recognition of the smaller anatomy and in lieu of pediatric research, for infants, the recommended particle size for Level 5—Minced & Moist food is 2 mm. The slots/gaps between the tines/prongs of a standard metal fork typically measure 4 mm, which provides a useful compliance measure for particle size of Minced & Moist foods served to adults.

For hard and soft solid foods served to adults, a maximum food sample size of ~1.5 × 1.5 cm is recommended, which is the approximate size of the adult human thumb nail [48] and the approximate width (from left to right] of the tip a standard metal fork. These dimensions represent the food texture industry standard ‘bite sample’ [47, 49], but most importantly are small enough to pass completely into the average adult trachea rather than obstruct it at the laryngeal inlet if accidentally inhaled [50, 51]. Tracheal size for adult males is 22 mm (range 15–27 mm) and for adult females is 17 mm (13–25 mm) [50]. Furthermore, food particle size of these dimensions has been identified as reducing asphyxiation risk [51].

Particle sizes for soft and hard food served to children younger than 5-year old are recommended to be no larger than 0.8 cm, which again relates to tracheal size and reduction of asphyxiation and choking risk [52]. Tracheal size of infants obviously changes as children grow. At age 20 months, the infant’s anteroposterior dimensions of the region just below the vocal cords, at the entrance to the trachea are approximately 3.8 mm × 6.5 mm. At 3 years 4 months (40 months), the dimensions are 7 mm x 3.9 mm and at 5 years of age the dimensions are approximately 8 mm × 4 mm [53]. It is for this reason that the Level 6—Soft & Bite-Sized specifies a particle size of 0.8 cm or less for children (i.e., 8 mm) and Level 5—Minced & Moist specifies a pediatric particle size of 0.2 cm (2 mm). Note also that food samples that are smaller than the maximum width of the child’s fifth fingernail (littlest finger) are unlikely to represent a choking risk, as this measurement is used to predict the internal diameter of an endotracheal tube in the pediatric population [54].

Chewing results in the breaking down of food, determined by a number of factors including: toughness, moisture content of the food, ability to adsorb or absorb saliva, and the fibrous nature of the food [47, 55]. The level of moisture content in food has been particularly singled out as an important variable for determining food readiness for swallowing [55]. Salivation moistens the food bolus and assists with softening, disintegration, and dilution, thus reduced salivation will hinder even fully dentate individuals from adequately preparing a bolus for swallowing. During particle size reduction while chewing, the normal bolus is not ‘lump-free,’ however, it is moist and cohesive. For assessment of cohesiveness and adhesiveness a spoon tilt test is recommended. In each case the sample should (a) hold its shape on the spoon; and (b) fall easily from the spoon when tilted or turned sideways. There should be little residue left on the spoon. These characteristics provide a bolus that is moist and cohesive, but not sticky or adhesive.

Quantification of food hardness is technically challenging because the mechanical structure of foods is generally complex. In industrial and scientific laboratories, a food texture analyzer is used to crush a sample of the food under controlled pressure and motion, but that requires motors and sensors. A practical test using a fork or spoon was previously recommended as part of the United Kingdom dysphagia diet standards [19] for assessing foods that would fall into IDDSI Levels 5–7 and transitional foods. The test involves applying a fork to the food sample to observe its behavior when pressure is applied, however, this varies with the level of force applied by the individual. In order to provide some standardization of the pressure applied, the IDDSI fork pressure test recommends that the fork be pressed onto the food sample by placing the thumb onto the bowl of the fork (just below the prongs), and pressing just hard enough to cause blanching of the thumbnail, Fig. 8a. Blanching occurs when the pressure overcomes mean arterial blood pressure and has been quantified at approximately 17 kPa, Fig. 8b. This pressure corresponds closely to a typical tongue pressure used during swallowing [56, 57]. In places where forks are not used, descriptions and testing methods have been developed for chopsticks and finger pressure testing.

Open image in new window

To meet the requirements for Level 6—Soft & Bite-sized, a food sample should squash with the application of pressure and not return to its original shape when pressure is released. Transitional foods can also be identified using the Fork Pressure Test. For transitional foods, a sample 1.5 × 1.5 cm is placed in a container with 1 mL of water. Testing occurs after 1 min of food soaking has occurred. The sample qualifies as transitional food texture if the sample squashes and disintegrates and no longer resembles its original shape, or if it has melted significantly so that it no longer looks like its original shape.

Consistent with existing national terminologies and evidence from autopsy data, tables showing ‘texture requirements’ and ‘texture restrictions’ for each level were generated (see Appendix in supplementary material). Foods that have been identified in multiple autopsy reviews to increase choking risk were specifically addressed in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section (www.iddsi.org).

The final framework was released by staggered roll out. The framework design including the twin-inverted pyramid design was launched at the Japanese Society of Dysphagia Rehabilitation Conference September 2015. The detailed descriptors for drinks were released online and via poster at the European Society of Swallowing Disorders Conference in September 2015; and the detailed descriptors for foods were released online and at the Food for the Elderly Conference, Hangzhou, China, in November 2015. Further to the release of the framework and detailed descriptors, and following consultation with a representative from the Australian Government Open Access and Licensing Framework (AusGOAL) and Creative Commons Australia, the IDDSI Framework and detailed descriptors were licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution Sharealike 4.0 Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode to facilitate language translation.