Alicia K Vose1,2,3, Sara Kesneck2, Kirstyn Sunday2, Emily Plowman1,2, Ianessa Humbert1,2. 1. Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2. Swallowing Systems Core, Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 3. Breathing Research and Therapeutics Training Program (T32 HL134621), Center for Respiratory Research and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Abstract
Purpose: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are the primary providers of dysphagia management; however, this role has been criticized with assertions that SLPs are inadequately trained in swallowing physiology (Campbell-Taylor, 2008). To date, diagnostic acuity and treatment planning for swallowing impairments by practicing SLPs have not been examined. We conducted a survey to examine how clinician demographics and swallowing complexity influence decision making for swallowing impairments in videofluoroscopic images. Our goal was to determine whether SLPs' judgments of swallowing timing impairments align with impairment thresholds available in the research literature and whether or not there is agreement among SLPs regarding therapeutic recommendations. Method: The survey included 3 videofluoroscopic swallows ranging in complexity (easy, moderate, and complex). Three hundred three practicing SLPs in dysphagia management participated in the survey in a web-based format (Qualtrics, 2005) with frame-by-frame viewing capabilities. SLPs' judgments of impairment were compared against impairment thresholds for swallowing timing measures based on 95% confidence intervals from healthy swallows reported in the literature. Results: The primary impairment in swallowing physiology was identified 67% of the time for the easy swallow, 6% for the moderate swallow, and 6% for the complex swallow. On average, practicing clinicians mislabeled 8 or more swallowing events as impaired that were within the normal physiologic range compared with healthy normative data available in the literature. Agreement was higher among clinicians who report using frame-by-frame analysis 80% of the time. A range of 19-21 different treatments was recommended for each video, regardless of complexity. Conclusions: Poor to modest agreement in swallowing impairment identification, frequent false positives, and wide variability in treatment planning recommendations suggest that additional research and training in healthy and disordered swallowing are needed to increase accurate dysphagia diagnosis and treatment among clinicians.
Purpose: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are the primary providers of dysphagia management; however, this role has been criticized with assertions that SLPs are inadequately trained in swallowing physiology (Campbell-Taylor, 2008). To date, diagnostic acuity and treatment planning for swallowing impairments by practicing SLPs have not been examined. We conducted a survey to examine how clinician demographics and swallowing complexity influence decision making for swallowing impairments in videofluoroscopic images. Our goal was to determine whether SLPs' judgments of swallowing timing impairments align with impairment thresholds available in the research literature and whether or not there is agreement among SLPs regarding therapeutic recommendations. Method: The survey included 3 videofluoroscopic swallows ranging in complexity (easy, moderate, and complex). Three hundred three practicing SLPs in dysphagia management participated in the survey in a web-based format (Qualtrics, 2005) with frame-by-frame viewing capabilities. SLPs' judgments of impairment were compared against impairment thresholds for swallowing timing measures based on 95% confidence intervals from healthy swallows reported in the literature. Results: The primary impairment in swallowing physiology was identified 67% of the time for the easy swallow, 6% for the moderate swallow, and 6% for the complex swallow. On average, practicing clinicians mislabeled 8 or more swallowing events as impaired that were within the normal physiologic range compared with healthy normative data available in the literature. Agreement was higher among clinicians who report using frame-by-frame analysis 80% of the time. A range of 19-21 different treatments was recommended for each video, regardless of complexity. Conclusions: Poor to modest agreement in swallowing impairment identification, frequent false positives, and wide variability in treatment planning recommendations suggest that additional research and training in healthy and disordered swallowing are needed to increase accurate dysphagia diagnosis and treatment among clinicians.
Authors: Christopher Cabib; Omar Ortega; Hatice Kumru; Ernest Palomeras; Natalia Vilardell; Daniel Alvarez-Berdugo; Desirée Muriana; Laia Rofes; Rosa Terré; Fermín Mearin; Pere Clavé Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Stephanie K Daniels; Mae Fern Schroeder; Pamela C DeGeorge; David M Corey; John C Rosenbek Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Richard W Grant; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Clemens S Hong; Clemens C Hong; Yuchiao Chang; Michael J Barry; Steve J Atlas Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bonnie Martin-Harris; Cheri L Canon; Heather Shaw Bonilha; Joseph Murray; Kate Davidson; Maureen A Lefton-Greif Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 2.408