These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical practice patterns of speech-language pathologists for screening and identifying dysphagia.
    Author: Dumican M, Thijs Z, Harper K.
    Journal: Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2023; 58(6):2062-2076. PubMed ID: 37376825.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To identify how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States are screening for and identifying dysphagia. To do this, we examined the approaches most often used to screen for dysphagia and the influence of contextual factors such as setting, continuing education and means of staying up to date with the most current literature on screening approaches. METHOD: A web-based survey composed of 32 questions was developed and field tested for content, relevance and workflow. The survey was distributed online, via social media, online SLP forums and through the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Special Interest Group 13 (swallowing disorders). One hundred and thirty-seven clinicians from the United States completed the survey and were included for analysis using descriptive statistics and linear regression modelling to assess associations of continuing education and years practicing with screening protocols and consumption of evidence. RESULTS: Respondents worked in a variety of settings, including acute care, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation. Most respondents worked with adult populations (88%). The most common screening protocols reported were a volume-dependent water swallow test (74%), subjective patient report (66%), and trials of solids/liquids (49%). Twenty-four percent (24%) reported using a questionnaire, the Eating Assessment Tool (80%) being most common. How clinicians consume their evidence was significantly associated with the types of screening approaches used. Continuing education hours were significantly associated with dysphagia screening protocol choice (p < 0.001) and how clinicians stayed up to date with evidence (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study provide an in-depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding how to effectively screen patients for the presence of dysphagia. Contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns should serve researchers to continue seeking alternative ways to share evidence with clinicians, accessibly. Associations between continuing education and protocol choice show the need for continued evidence-based and high-quality continuing education opportunities. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This study provides an in-depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding effective dysphagia screening practices. Clinician screening choices are examined with contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns and continuing education. This paper increases knowledge of the most used dysphagia screening practices and context for clinicians and researchers to improve use, evidence and dissemination of best practices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]