Analysis of Patients' Dietary Status/Restrictions Following Instrumental Swallow Evaluations in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Theresa Hopkins-Rossabi, Amy Lenze, Sarah Carter Lindler, Catherine Hardy, Sarah Labruce Temple
{"title":"Analysis of Patients' Dietary Status/Restrictions Following Instrumental Swallow Evaluations in Skilled Nursing Facilities.","authors":"Theresa Hopkins-Rossabi, Amy Lenze, Sarah Carter Lindler, Catherine Hardy, Sarah Labruce Temple","doi":"10.1007/s00455-024-10750-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many residents in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) present with dysphagia and receive altered diets or liquids to minimize the risk of complications. Limited access to timely instrumental evaluations of swallow may impede the best management of these dysphagic residents. De-identified FEES reports completed by a mobile FEES company during a single month, January 2019, were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the pre-study diet/liquid levels and the post-study diet/liquid recommendations. FEES reports (n = 952) were reviewed. Before the FEES evaluation, 209 residents were receiving only non-oral nutrition. After the FEES evaluation, 76% of these residents were recommended to receive oral nutrition. Before the FEES evaluation, 442 (46%) residents were receiving thickened liquids, after the FEES evaluation, 244 (26%) were recommended to have a less restrictive liquid level. Before the FEES evaluation, 576 (60%) residents were receiving altered food texture, after the FEES evaluation, 413 (43%) were recommended to have a less restrictive food texture. The percentage of residents recommended to receive thin liquids increased from 32 to 68% and those recommended to receive a regular diet increased from 18 to 34%. These data indicate that access to instrumental swallow evaluations in the SNF setting generally resulted in lifting liquid and diet restrictions for many residents in the cohort reviewed and potentially improved their quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-024-10750-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many residents in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) present with dysphagia and receive altered diets or liquids to minimize the risk of complications. Limited access to timely instrumental evaluations of swallow may impede the best management of these dysphagic residents. De-identified FEES reports completed by a mobile FEES company during a single month, January 2019, were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the pre-study diet/liquid levels and the post-study diet/liquid recommendations. FEES reports (n = 952) were reviewed. Before the FEES evaluation, 209 residents were receiving only non-oral nutrition. After the FEES evaluation, 76% of these residents were recommended to receive oral nutrition. Before the FEES evaluation, 442 (46%) residents were receiving thickened liquids, after the FEES evaluation, 244 (26%) were recommended to have a less restrictive liquid level. Before the FEES evaluation, 576 (60%) residents were receiving altered food texture, after the FEES evaluation, 413 (43%) were recommended to have a less restrictive food texture. The percentage of residents recommended to receive thin liquids increased from 32 to 68% and those recommended to receive a regular diet increased from 18 to 34%. These data indicate that access to instrumental swallow evaluations in the SNF setting generally resulted in lifting liquid and diet restrictions for many residents in the cohort reviewed and potentially improved their quality of life.

Abstract Image

精密护理设施中仪器吞咽评估后的患者饮食状况/限制分析。
许多住在加护设施(SNF)的患者都会出现吞咽困难,并接受改变饮食或流质食物以尽量降低并发症的风险。及时进行吞咽器械评估的机会有限,这可能会妨碍对这些吞咽困难住院患者进行最佳管理。我们对一家移动 FEES 公司在 2019 年 1 月这一个月内完成的去身份 FEES 报告进行了审查。使用描述性统计来总结研究前的饮食/液体水平和研究后的饮食/液体建议。审查了 FEES 报告(n = 952)。在 FEES 评估之前,有 209 名住院患者只接受非口服营养。经过 FEES 评估后,其中 76% 的住院患者被建议接受口服营养。在进行 FEES 评估之前,有 442 名住院患者(46%)接受的是浓稠流质食物,在进行 FEES 评估之后,有 244 名住院患者(26%)被建议接受限制较少的流质食物。在進行評估前,有 576 名住客(60%)的食物質地有所改變,而在評估後,有 413 名住客(43%)獲建議改用較寬鬆的食物質地。建议接受稀流质食物的居民比例从 32% 增加到 68%,建议接受常规饮食的居民比例从 18% 增加到 34%。这些数据表明,在护理机构环境中进行工具性吞咽评估后,许多住院患者的流质和饮食限制普遍得到了解除,并有可能改善他们的生活质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dysphagia
Dysphagia 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信