Literature DB >> 18670808

What information do clinicians use in recommending oral versus nonoral feeding in oropharyngeal dysphagic patients?

Jeri A Logemann1, Alfred Rademaker, Barbara Roa Pauloski, Jodi Antinoja, Mary Bacon, Michelle Bernstein, Joy Gaziano, Barbara Grande, Lisa Kelchner, Amy Kelly, Bernice Klaben, Donna Lundy, Lisa Newman, Daphne Santa, Linda Stachowiak, Carrie Stangl-McBreen, Cory Atkinson, Heidi Bassani, Melissa Czapla, Julie Farquharson, Kristin Larsen, Vicki Lewis, Heather Logan, Teri Nitschke, Sharon Veis.   

Abstract

There is little evidence regarding the type(s) of information clinicians use to make the recommendation for oral or nonoral feeding in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. This study represents a first step toward identifying data used by clinicians to make this recommendation and how clinical experience may affect the recommendation. Thirteen variables were considered critical in making the oral vs. nonoral decision by the 23 clinicians working in dysphagia. These variables were then used by the clinicians to independently recommend oral vs. nonoral feeding or partial oral with nonoral feeding for the 20 anonymous patients whose modified barium swallows were sent on a videotape to each clinician. Clinicians also received data on the 13 variables for each patient. Results of clinician agreement on the recommendation of full oral and nonoral only were quite high, as measured by Kappa statistics. In an analysis of which of the 13 criteria clinicians used in making their recommendations, amount of aspiration was the criterion with the highest frequency. Recommendations for use of postures and maneuvers and the effect of clinician experience on these choices were also analyzed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18670808      PMCID: PMC2893042          DOI: 10.1007/s00455-008-9152-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dysphagia        ISSN: 0179-051X            Impact factor:   3.438


  9 in total

1.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.

Authors:  N MANTEL; W HAENSZEL
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-04       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Adult dysphagia assessment in the UK and Ireland: are SLTs assessing the same factors?

Authors:  Claire Bateman; Paula Leslie; Michael J Drinnan
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 3.438

3.  Aspiration pneumonia. Clinical outcome following documented aspiration.

Authors:  J L Cameron; W H Mitchell; G D Zuidema
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1973-01

4.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Frequency of videofluoroscopic modified barium swallow studies and pneumonia in stroke rehabilitation patients: a comparative study.

Authors:  R W Teasell; M McRae; J Heitzner; A Bhardwaj; H Finestone
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Aspiration and relative risk of medical complications following stroke.

Authors:  M A Holas; K L DePippo; M J Reding
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1994-10

7.  Videofluoroscopic studies of swallowing dysfunction and the relative risk of pneumonia.

Authors:  Lana Pikus; Marc S Levine; Yu-Xiao Yang; Stephen E Rubesin; David A Katzka; Igor Laufer; Warren B Gefter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Dysphagia: predicting laryngeal penetration.

Authors:  P Linden; A A Siebens
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  Videofluoroscopic evidence of aspiration predicts pneumonia and death but not dehydration following stroke.

Authors:  J Schmidt; M Holas; K Halvorson; M Reding
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.438

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Validity of conducting clinical dysphagia assessments for patients with normal to mild cognitive impairment via telerehabilitation.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Ward; Shobha Sharma; Clare Burns; Deborah Theodoros; Trevor Russell
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  What information do UK speech and language therapists use when making oral versus nonoral feeding recommendations for adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia?

Authors:  Naomi Cocks; Hazel Ferreira
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 3.438

3.  Impact of dysphagia severity on clinical decision making via telerehabilitation.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Ward; Clare L Burns; Deborah G Theodoros; Trevor G Russell
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2014-01-20       Impact factor: 3.536

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.