There appears to be an association between poor oral hygiene and increased risk of aspiration pneumoniaa leading cause of mortality post-stroke. We aim to synthesise what is known about oral care after stroke, identify knowledge gaps and outline priorities for research that will provide evidence to inform best practice. Methods: A narrative review from a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing on evidence from systematic reviews, literature, expert and lay opinion to scrutinise current practice in oral care after a stroke and seek consensus on research priorities. Findings: Oral care tends to be of poor quality and delegated to the least qualified members of the caring team. Nursing staff often work in a pressured environment where other aspects of clinical care take priority. Guidelines that exist are based on weak evidence and lack detail about how best to provide oral care. Discussion: Oral health after a stroke is important from a social as well as physical health perspective, yet tends to be neglected. Multidisciplinary research is needed to improve understanding of the complexities associated with delivering good oral care for stroke patients. Also to provide the evidence for practice that will improve wellbeing and may reduce risk of aspiration pneumonia and other serious sequelae. Conclusion: Although there is evidence of an association, there is only weak evidence about whether improving oral care reduces risk of pneumonia or mortality after a stroke. Clinically relevant, feasible, cost-effective, evidence-based oral care interventions to improve patient outcomes in stroke care are urgently needed.

Background Dysphagia is associated with aspiration pneumonia after stroke. Data are limited on the influences of dysphagia screen and assessment in clinical practice. Aims To determine associations between a “brief” screen and “detailed” assessment of dysphagia on clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients. Methods A prospective cohort study analyzed retrospectively using data from a multicenter, cluster cross-over, randomized controlled trial (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial [HeadPoST]) from 114 hospitals in nine countries. HeadPoST included 11,093 acute stroke patients randomized to lying-flat or sitting-up head positioning. Herein, we report predefined secondary analyses of the association of dysphagia screening and assessment and clinical outcomes of pneumonia and death or disability (modified Rankin scale 3–6) at 90 days. Results Overall, 8784 (79.2%) and 3917 (35.3%) patients were screened and assessed for dysphagia, respectively, but the frequency and timing for each varied widely across regions. Neither use of a screen nor an assessment for dysphagia was associated with the outcomes, but their results were compared to “screen-pass” patients, those who failed had higher risks of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18–4.10) and death or disability (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.41–1.95). Similar results were evidence for the results of an assessment for dysphagia. Subsequent feeding restrictions were related to higher risk of pneumonia in patients failed dysphagia screen or assessment (aOR = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.72–9.54). Conclusions Failing a dysphagia screen is associated with increased risks of pneumonia and poor clinical outcome after acute stroke. Further studies concentrate on determining the effective subsequent feeding actions are needed to improve patient outcomes.

Objective: To describe the bacterial profile of the oral flora during the first 2 weeks following a stroke, examining changes in the condition of the oral cavity and infections.Background: Dysphagia is common after a stroke and can lead to aspiration pneumo-

Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are expected to make evidence-based recommendations, thus guiding practice and reducing unwarranted variation. CPGs are particularly helpful in guiding complex procedures such as the Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study (VFSS) for the assessment of dysphagia, but there is a suspected high level of variability among them. To explore the extent of this variation, this study aimed to systematically identify and appraise all VFSS CPGs available worldwide. Methods: A systematic search of 3 academic databases and other sources was conducted to identify relevant CPGs; independent reviews of each CPG were undertaken by a Speech and Language Therapist and a Radiographer. Both reviewers completed a predetermined checklist of expected professional content for each CPG. CPGs were then assessed for quality using the Appraisal of Guidance for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Findings from the professional content review and the methodological quality review were synthesised to inform an assessment of suitability of each CPG to inform clinical practice. Results: Seven VFSS CPGs were identified worldwide, none of which were co-designed by radiographers or aimed at a radiographer audience. Each differs in their professional content, recommendations, underpinning evidence base and professional focus. Average AGREE ll scores across the quality domains vary considerably, ranging from 93-22%. No CPGs scored highly on all six AGREE II domains. Conclusion: There is no standardisation between VFSS guidelines. Six CPGs are not recommended for clinical use; only one of the seven identified CPGs is recommended for use following significant modification. Implications for practice: The lack of a comprehensive, evidence-based guideline encourages unwarranted variation in clinical practice which potentially compromises clinical care. Further research is needed to define VFSS best practice.

BackgroundPositioning a patient lying-flat in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke may improve recovery and reduce disability, but such a possibility has not been formally tested in a randomised trial. We therefore initiated the Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) to determine the effects of lying-flat (0°) compared with sitting-up (≥30°) head positioning in the first 24 hours of hospital admission for patients with acute stroke.Methods/DesignWe plan to conduct an international, cluster randomised, crossover, open, blinded outcome-assessed clinical trial involving 140 study hospitals (clusters) with established acute stroke care programs. Each hospital will be randomly assigned to sequential policies of lying-flat (0°) or sitting-up (≥30°) head position as a ‘business as usual’ stroke care policy during the first 24 hours of admittance. Each hospital is required to recruit 60 consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), and all patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (an estimated average of 10), in the first randomised head position policy before crossing over to the second head position policy with a similar recruitment target. After collection of in-hospital clinical and management data and 7-day outcomes, central trained blinded assessors will conduct a telephone disability assessment with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. The primary outcome for analysis is a shift (defined as improvement) in death or disability on this scale. For a cluster size of 60 patients with AIS per intervention and with various assumptions including an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03, a sample size of 16,800 patients at 140 centres will provide 90 % power (α 0.05) to detect at least a 16 % relative improvement (shift) in an ordinal logistic regression analysis of the primary outcome. The treatment effect will also be assessed in all patients with ICH who are recruited during each treatment study period.DiscussionHeadPoST is a large international clinical trial in which we will rigorously evaluate the effects of different head positioning in patients with acute stroke.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162017 (date of registration: 27 April 2014); ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12614000483651 (date of registration: 9 May 2014). Protocol version and date: version 2.2, 19 June 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0767-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows:To determine the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for detecting dysphagia, which is a predictor of aspiration, in people with acute stroke.To assess the influence of the following potential sources of heterogeneity.• Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender, percentage of males in study, median age of study by gender).• The time post-stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke dysphagia screening tools are identified.• Any significant change in the participant's condition between the index and reference tests being performed.• The definition of dysphagia used by the study.• Level of training of nursing staff, both grade and training in the screening tool.• Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist.• Type of the index test and the threshold of the index test.• Type of the reference test.1 Screening for aspiration risk associated with dysphagia in acute stroke (Protocol)

This small-scale feasibility study suggests that it is feasible to adapt MI for people with moderate to severe post-stroke aphasia. These findings merit further exploration of adapted MI as an intervention for this patient group.