UNLABELLED: Adherence to recommended clinical practices improves stroke outcomes. As a result, stroke clinicians are increasingly expected to evaluate the quality of the care they provide so that areas for improvement can be targeted. Finding the best method to evaluate the quality of dysphagia management can be challenging. AIM: To systematically review process indicators used to assess the quality of care provided to patients with dysphagia following acute stroke and examine the level of evidence underpinning these indicators. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched to identify publications (January 2006-April 2009) that describe process indicators relating to the clinical management of acute stroke-related dysphagia. Relevant process indicators were extracted from the reviewed publications for detailed post hoc analysis including supporting evidence and alignment to the current Australian and English stroke guidelines. RESULTS: Title and abstract review found 150 potential studies. Full-text review resulted in 25 publications that met the study's inclusion criteria. Thirteen process indicators were identified in the literature that related to the initial assessment, clinical management, rehabilitation and discharge planning for patients with acute stroke-related dysphagia. These processes were supported by levels of evidence ranging from high 'level 1' (8%) down to 'expert opinion' evidence (46%). Two process indicators did not align to recommendations in the clinical guidelines. This systematic review underpins informed selection of process indicators for evaluating the quality of dysphagia management following stroke. The selection of quality indicators is complicated by equivocal supporting evidence; however, indicators should reflect expected local practices, align with national stroke guidelines and be feasible for clinical auditing.
UNLABELLED: Adherence to recommended clinical practices improves stroke outcomes. As a result, stroke clinicians are increasingly expected to evaluate the quality of the care they provide so that areas for improvement can be targeted. Finding the best method to evaluate the quality of dysphagia management can be challenging. AIM: To systematically review process indicators used to assess the quality of care provided to patients with dysphagia following acute stroke and examine the level of evidence underpinning these indicators. METHODS: Databases were systematically searched to identify publications (January 2006-April 2009) that describe process indicators relating to the clinical management of acute stroke-related dysphagia. Relevant process indicators were extracted from the reviewed publications for detailed post hoc analysis including supporting evidence and alignment to the current Australian and English stroke guidelines. RESULTS: Title and abstract review found 150 potential studies. Full-text review resulted in 25 publications that met the study's inclusion criteria. Thirteen process indicators were identified in the literature that related to the initial assessment, clinical management, rehabilitation and discharge planning for patients with acute stroke-related dysphagia. These processes were supported by levels of evidence ranging from high 'level 1' (8%) down to 'expert opinion' evidence (46%). Two process indicators did not align to recommendations in the clinical guidelines. This systematic review underpins informed selection of process indicators for evaluating the quality of dysphagia management following stroke. The selection of quality indicators is complicated by equivocal supporting evidence; however, indicators should reflect expected local practices, align with national stroke guidelines and be feasible for clinical auditing.
Authors: Margitta T Kampman; Agnethe Eltoft; Migle Karaliute; Margrethe T Børvik; Hugo Nilssen; Ida Rasmussen; Stein H Johnsen Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2015-10
Authors: Danielle Pedroni Moraes; Fernanda Chiarion Sassi; Laura Davison Mangilli; Bruno Zilberstein; Claudia Regina Furquim de Andrade Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 9.097