Background: Dysphagia occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite the clinical relevance, there is little worldwide research on prevention, assessment, evaluation, and/or treatment of dysphagia for ICU patients. We aimed to gain insight into this international knowledge gap. Methods:We conducted a multi-center, international online cross-sectional survey of adult ICUs. Local survey distribution champions were recruited through professional and personal networks. The survey was administered from November 2017 to June 2019 with three email and a final telephone reminder. Results:Responses were received from 746 ICUs (26 countries). In patients intubated >48 hours, 17% expected a >50% chance that dysphagia would develop. This proportion increased to 43% in patients intubated >7 days, and to 52% in tracheotomized patients. Speech-language pathologist (SLP) consultation was available in 66% of ICUs, only 4% reported a dedicated SLP.Although 66% considered a routine post-extubation dysphagia protocol important, most (67%) did not have a protocol. Few ICUs routinely assessed for dysphagia after 48 hours intubation (30%) or tracheostomy (41%). A large proportion (46%) used water swallow screening tests to determine aspiration, few (8%) used instrumental assessments (i.e., flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing). Swallowing exercises were used for dysphagia management by 30% of ICUs.Conclusions: There seems to be limited awareness among ICU practioners that patients are at risk of dysphagia, particularly as ventilation persists, protocols, routine assessment and instrumental assessments are generally not used. We recommend the development of a research agenda to increase the quality of evidence and ameliorate the implementation of evidence-based dysphagia protocols by dedicated SLPs.

Objective To identify core practices for workforce management of communication and swallowing functions in COVID-19 positive patients within the ICU. Design A modified Delphi methodology was utilized, with 3 electronic voting rounds. AGREE II and an adapted COVID-19 survey framework from physiotherapy were used to develop survey statements. Sixty-six statements pertaining to workforce planning and management of communication and swallowing function in the ICU were included. Setting Electronic modified Delphi process. Participants 35 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) from 6 continents representing 12 countries. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome was consensus agreement, defined a priori as ≥70% of participants with a mean Likert score ≥7.0 (11-point scale: “0” = strongly disagree, “10” strongly agree). Prioritization rank order of statements in a 4 th round was also conducted. Results SLPs with a median of 15 years ICU experience, working primarily in clinical (54%), in academic (29%) or managerial (17%) positions, completed all voting rounds. After the third round, 64 statements (97%) met criteria. Rank ordering identified issues of high importance. Conclusions A set of global consensus statements to facilitate planning and delivery of rehabilitative care for patients admitted to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic were agreed by an international expert SLP group. Statements focus on considerations for workforce preparation, resourcing and training, and the management of communication and swallowing functions. These statements support and provide direction for all members of the rehabilitation team to use for patients admitted to the ICU during a global pandemic.

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care. Methods: We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published. Results: We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) − 4.5, 95% CI − 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I 2 = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD − 11.38, 95% CI − 23.83 to 1.08, I 2 = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty). Conclusion: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.

BackgroundOropharyngeal dysphagia or swallowing difficulties are common in acute care and critical care, affecting 47% of hospitalised frail elderly, 50% of acute stroke patients and approximately 62% of critically ill patients who have been intubated and mechanically ventilated for prolonged periods. Complications of dysphagia include aspiration leading to chest infection and pneumonia, malnutrition, increased length of hospital stay and re-admission to hospital. To date, most dysphagia interventions in acute care have been tested with acute stroke populations. While intervention studies in critical care have been emerging since 2015, they are limited and so there is much to learn about the type, the delivery and the intensity of treatments in this setting to inform future clinical trials. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence regarding the relationship between dysphagia interventions and clinically important patient outcomes in acute and critical care settings.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL and clinical trial registries from inception to the present. We will include studies conducted with adults in acute care settings such as acute hospital wards or units or intensive care units and critical care settings. Studies will be restricted to randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a new dysphagia intervention with usual care or another intervention. The main outcomes that will be collected include length of time taken to return to oral intake, change in incidence of aspiration and pneumonia, nutritional status, length of hospital stay and quality of life. Key intervention components such as delivery, intensity, acceptability, fidelity and adverse events associated with such interventions will be collected to inform future clinical trials. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.DiscussionNo systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for oropharyngeal dysphagia interventions in acute and critical care. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD 42018116849 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/)

ObjectivesTo identify all outcomes, their definitions, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs), timepoints and frequency of measurement applied in clinical trials in oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) interventions in Parkinson’s disease (PD). This scoping review is the first stage of a larger project establishing a core outcome set for dysphagia interventions in Parkinson’s disease (COS-DIP).DesignScoping review.MethodsSix electronic databases and one trial registry were searched without language restrictions until March 2022. Bibliography lists of included studies were also reviewed. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers using Covidence. The scoping review protocol is registered and published (http://hdl.handle.net/2262/97652).Results19 studies with 134 outcomes were included. Trial outcomes were mapped to a recommended taxonomy for COSs and merged. 39 outcomes were identified. The most frequently measured were general swallowing-related outcomes, global quality-of-life outcomes and swallowing-related perceived health status outcomes. The applied outcomes, their definitions, OMIs, timepoints and frequency of measurement showed a high variability across all studies.ConclusionsThe high variability of outcomes emphasises the need for an agreed standardised COS. This will inform clinical trial design in OD in PD, increase the quality of OD trials in PD and facilitate synthesising and comparing study results to reach conclusion on the safety and effectiveness of OD interventions in PD. It will not prevent or restrict researchers from examining other outcomes.Trial registration numberThe COS-DIP study, including the scoping review, was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org, registration number: 1942).

ObjectiveIdentify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19.DesignMulticentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2–7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10–14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations.Setting64 UK acute hospital Trusts.ParticipantsAdults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19.Main outcome measuresSelf-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise.ResultsCompromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001).ConclusionSwallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues.

No abstract

No abstract