Solid Medication Intake in Hospitalised Patients With Dysphagia: A Challenge for Speech and Language Pathologists?

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Michaela Trapl-Grundschober, Lea Schneider, Steffen Schulz, Simon Sollereder, Yvonne Teuschl, Walter Struhal, Jürgen Osterbrink
{"title":"Solid Medication Intake in Hospitalised Patients With Dysphagia: A Challenge for Speech and Language Pathologists?","authors":"Michaela Trapl-Grundschober,&nbsp;Lea Schneider,&nbsp;Steffen Schulz,&nbsp;Simon Sollereder,&nbsp;Yvonne Teuschl,&nbsp;Walter Struhal,&nbsp;Jürgen Osterbrink","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Speech and language pathologists (SLP) are frequently consulted for guidance on the management of oral solid medications. However, the extent to which SLPs consider solid medication intake during swallowing examination remains unclear. The present study endeavoured to find out whether and how SLPs assess patients’ ability to swallow solid dosage forms (SDF) in clinical settings, with a specific focus on stroke units.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among SLPs in German-speaking countries. The questionnaire was targeted at SLPs working in hospitals and distributed through both direct outreach and passive dissemination on social networks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 200 returned questionnaires, 147 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 108 (73.5%) evaluated the swallowing ability of solid oral medications and were further analysed. During clinical swallowing examination, the patient's own medication is most frequently used (63.9%). 92.6% of the 108 SLPs stated that they regularly offer guidance on altering SDFs. SLPs' decision to recommend modified SDFs or pause them is influenced by oral cavity retention of SDFs, pharyngeal phase disorders and SDF intake-related coughing. Additionally, SLPs employ textures that were determined to be safe for accompanying boluses, with fruit puree and water being the most preferred types. Responses of SLPs working on stroke units did not differ significantly from those working on other wards.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>SLPs commonly evaluate the swallowing ability of SDFs. Typically, they utilise the patient's own medications for testing purposes and previously trialled consistencies as accompanying boluses. Specific evaluation and educational programs are needed to enhance the management quality of oral SDFs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <p><b>Trial Registration</b>: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: Registration ID: NCT05173051/Protocol ID: 11TS003721</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\n \n <div><i>What is already known on the subject</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>Speech Language Pathologists are crucial in assessing and managing dysphagia. Recent studies and guidelines suggest that it is important for SLPs to evaluate the ability to swallow solid medications. However, there is limited research on whether and how SLPs assess and manage solid dosage forms in patients with dysphagia, especially those with post-stroke dysphagia. Although a few studies have used instrumental assessments like FEES to evaluate pill swallowing, there is a lack of standardised methods.</li>\n </ul>\n <i>What this paper adds to existing knowledge</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>The findings indicate that almost three-quarters of the surveyed SLPs do evaluate SDFs, with fruit puree and water being the most preferred accompanying boluses. Patients' own medications are more frequently used in clinical swallowing examinations (CSE), whilst placebos are preferred in instrumental assessments. A large majority of SLPs are involved in deciding whether solid medications should be modified for patients with dysphagia.</li>\n </ul>\n <i>What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>The research highlights the need for standardised protocols for the evaluation of swallowing SDFs as part of both clinical and instrumental assessments. Additionally, there is a critical need for the establishment of professional and regulatory guidelines to ensure consistent and evidence-based practices among SLPs, potentially improving patient care and medication administration.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":"60 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.70073","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.70073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Speech and language pathologists (SLP) are frequently consulted for guidance on the management of oral solid medications. However, the extent to which SLPs consider solid medication intake during swallowing examination remains unclear. The present study endeavoured to find out whether and how SLPs assess patients’ ability to swallow solid dosage forms (SDF) in clinical settings, with a specific focus on stroke units.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among SLPs in German-speaking countries. The questionnaire was targeted at SLPs working in hospitals and distributed through both direct outreach and passive dissemination on social networks.

Results

Of 200 returned questionnaires, 147 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 108 (73.5%) evaluated the swallowing ability of solid oral medications and were further analysed. During clinical swallowing examination, the patient's own medication is most frequently used (63.9%). 92.6% of the 108 SLPs stated that they regularly offer guidance on altering SDFs. SLPs' decision to recommend modified SDFs or pause them is influenced by oral cavity retention of SDFs, pharyngeal phase disorders and SDF intake-related coughing. Additionally, SLPs employ textures that were determined to be safe for accompanying boluses, with fruit puree and water being the most preferred types. Responses of SLPs working on stroke units did not differ significantly from those working on other wards.

Conclusion

SLPs commonly evaluate the swallowing ability of SDFs. Typically, they utilise the patient's own medications for testing purposes and previously trialled consistencies as accompanying boluses. Specific evaluation and educational programs are needed to enhance the management quality of oral SDFs.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: Registration ID: NCT05173051/Protocol ID: 11TS003721

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject
  • Speech Language Pathologists are crucial in assessing and managing dysphagia. Recent studies and guidelines suggest that it is important for SLPs to evaluate the ability to swallow solid medications. However, there is limited research on whether and how SLPs assess and manage solid dosage forms in patients with dysphagia, especially those with post-stroke dysphagia. Although a few studies have used instrumental assessments like FEES to evaluate pill swallowing, there is a lack of standardised methods.
What this paper adds to existing knowledge
  • The findings indicate that almost three-quarters of the surveyed SLPs do evaluate SDFs, with fruit puree and water being the most preferred accompanying boluses. Patients' own medications are more frequently used in clinical swallowing examinations (CSE), whilst placebos are preferred in instrumental assessments. A large majority of SLPs are involved in deciding whether solid medications should be modified for patients with dysphagia.
What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?
  • The research highlights the need for standardised protocols for the evaluation of swallowing SDFs as part of both clinical and instrumental assessments. Additionally, there is a critical need for the establishment of professional and regulatory guidelines to ensure consistent and evidence-based practices among SLPs, potentially improving patient care and medication administration.

Abstract Image

吞咽困难住院患者的固体药物摄入:对言语和语言病理学家的挑战?
目的语音和语言病理学家(SLP)经常被咨询指导口服固体药物的管理。然而,吞咽检查时slp考虑固体药物摄入的程度仍不清楚。本研究试图找出slp是否以及如何评估患者在临床环境中吞咽固体剂型(SDF)的能力,并特别关注中风单位。方法对德语国家的slp进行在线横断面调查。调查问卷的对象是在医院工作的社会服务提供者,通过直接外联和在社会网络上被动传播两种方式分发。结果在收到的200份问卷中,147份符合纳入标准。其中,108例(73.5%)评估了固体口服药物的吞咽能力,并进行了进一步的分析。在临床吞咽检查中,患者自用药物最多(63.9%)。在108个slp中,92.6%的人表示他们会定期就改变sdf提供指导。slp推荐改良的SDF或暂停用药的决定受到SDF口腔滞留、咽期紊乱和SDF摄入相关咳嗽的影响。此外,slp采用的质地被认为是安全的,水果泥和水是最受欢迎的类型。在卒中单元工作的slp的反应与在其他病房工作的slp没有显著差异。结论slp是评价sdf吞咽能力的常用方法。通常,他们利用患者自己的药物进行测试,并将先前试验过的一致性作为附带丸。为了提高口腔自立基金的管理质量,需要制定具体的评价和教育方案。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:注册ID: NCT05173051/协议ID: 11TS003721本文补充的内容:关于主题的已知内容语音语言病理学家在评估和管理吞咽困难方面至关重要。最近的研究和指南表明,评估slp吞咽固体药物的能力是很重要的。然而,slp是否以及如何评估和管理吞咽困难患者的固体剂型,特别是卒中后吞咽困难患者,研究有限。尽管有一些研究使用了诸如FEES之类的工具评估来评估服药情况,但缺乏标准化的方法。研究结果表明,在接受调查的slp中,几乎有四分之三的人会评估sdf,而水果泥和水是最受欢迎的附带饮料。患者自己的药物更常用于临床吞咽检查(CSE),而安慰剂在仪器评估中更受欢迎。绝大多数slp参与决定是否应该对吞咽困难患者的固体药物进行修改。这项工作的潜在或实际临床意义是什么?该研究强调了将吞咽sdf评估作为临床和仪器评估的一部分制定标准化方案的必要性。此外,迫切需要建立专业和监管指南,以确保slp之间的一致和循证实践,从而潜在地改善患者护理和药物管理。
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
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信