Your search

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered the world as we know it. Service delivery for the instrumental evaluation of dysphagia in hospitalized patients has been significantly impacted. In many institutions, instrumental assessment was halted or eliminated from the clinical workflow, leaving clinicians without evidence-based gold standards to definitively evaluate swallowing function. The aim of this study was to describe the outcomes of an early, but measured return to the use of instrumental dysphagia assessment in hospitalized patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was extracted via a retrospective medical record review on all patients on whom a swallowing consult was placed. Information on patient demographics, type of swallowing evaluation, and patient COVID status was recorded and analyzed. Statistics on staff COVID status were also obtained. Over the study period, a total of 4482 FEES evaluations and 758 MBS evaluations were completed. During this time, no staff members tested COVID-positive due to workplace exposure. Results strongly support the fact that a measured return to instrumental assessment of swallowing is an appropriate and reasonable clinical shift during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Patients with schizophrenia present with both cognitive impairment as well as language difficulties. There are similarities in the language output of patients with schizophrenia and patients with aphasia, thus a differential diagnosis of patients who present with a question of dual diagnoses can be a clinical challenge. This case report highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to a patient with schizophrenia who benefitted from intervention from both psychiatry and speech–language pathology services due to the patient's unique verbal output. Aims The primary aim of this case report is to highlight the critical importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in this patient population. The secondary aim is to disseminate an interesting and unique clinical phenomenon whereby the patient demonstrated an awareness of two distinct speech patterns and the unique ability to ‘code switch’ between them, something not commonly appreciated in this clinical population. Methods & Procedures This case report describes a patient seen as part of routine clinical care. Information shared was solely observational and involved dissemination of information regarding case history, assessment and treatment plan. No interventions were implemented as a part of this study. Outcomes & Results Interprofessional communication was critical in order to diagnose a patient with schizophrenia with an atypical speech pattern. The patient's language output did not manifest as a true aphasia but rather as two distinct language patterns that the patient could use at will. This ability to ‘code switch’ between languages is a unique clinical profile that is atypical of patients with schizophrenia. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS What is already known on this subject Contemporary literature discusses the similarities between the language patterns of patients with aphasia and those with schizophrenia. There has been debate about how to classify and identify the mechanism of schizophrenic language. It is unclear whether the tangential press of speech in schizophrenia is a consequence of a formal thought disorder, or whether it constitutes an actual disorder or expressive language. Additionally, the mechanism for this speech pattern is not well defined in the literature as there is no consensus on whether it is a breakdown in linguistic processing or simply a patient's disordered thoughts being put into words. A less robust literature exists that suggests that there is a cognitive mechanism responsible for these speech patterns, as tangential speech has been linked to poor goal maintenance in other types of cognitive tasks. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study adds an important discussion about the critical importance of interprofessional collaboration when differentially diagnosing this complex patient population. It highlights the importance of the clinical exchange of information between the two disciplines of psychiatry and speech–language pathology about a patient population where clinical information is intertwined in the way described above. Regardless of the cause of the disordered output, what is lacking in the literature is evidence of how to address the complexities of the output of these patients and how to best manage the care of the patient. This study adds a practical clinical approach to collaborating on the assessment and management of this complex patient population. Importantly, it adds a description of a clinical manifestation of the language output of a patient with schizophrenia that we do not believe to have been previously published in the literature. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Implications of this study include a much-needed shift in the field in two regards. First, to include this patient population in the groups of patients that can benefit from interprofessional collaboration for differential diagnosis and consideration for speech and language therapy. Second, it offers a practical clinical approach to inter-professional management in this patient population, something the literature is currently lacking. Additionally, publication of this unique clinical manifestation provides foundational knowledge for other clinicians appreciating similar clinical patterns of language output. To our knowledge, this is the first published case in which a patient could volitionally inhibit certain speech characteristics and thus this case study may assist in future differential diagnosis of patients with schizophrenia.

The aim of this study is to describe a measured return to instrumental dysphagia assessments for our vulnerable surgical patient population, such that best practice patterns could be resumed and our staff kept safe from transmission of COVID-19. A retrospective medical record review provided data on clinical practice patterns of swallowing assessment in an at-risk surgical patient population. Outcomes of this study support protocols that allow clinicians to safely resume the use of instrumental assessment and return to best practice in dysphagia assessment for our surgical patient population.

Objectives: To determine whether a modifiable risk factor, endotracheal tube size, is associated with the diagnosis of postextubation aspiration in survivors of acute respiratory failure. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: ICUs at four academic tertiary care medical centers. Patients: Two hundred ten patients who were at least 18 years old, admitted to an ICU, and mechanically ventilated with an endotracheal tube for longer than 48 hours were enrolled. Interventions: Within 72 hours of extubation, all patients received a flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination that entailed administration of ice, thin liquid, thick liquid, puree, and cracker boluses. Patient demographics, treatment variables, and hospital outcomes were abstracted from the patient's medical records. Endotracheal tube size was independently selected by the patient's treating physicians. Measurements and Main Results: For each flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination, laryngeal pathology was evaluated, and for each bolus, a Penetration Aspiration Scale score was assigned. Aspiration (Penetration Aspiration Scale score ≥ 6) was further categorized into nonsilent aspiration (Penetration Aspiration Scale score = 6 or 7) and silent aspiration (Penetration Aspiration Scale score = 8). One third of patients (n = 68) aspirated (Penetration Aspiration Scale score ≥ 6) on at least one bolus, 13.6% (n = 29) exhibited silent aspiration, and 23.8% (n = 50) exhibited nonsilent aspiration. In a multivariable analysis, endotracheal tube size (≤ 7.5 vs ≥ 8.0) was significantly associated with patients exhibiting any aspiration (Penetration Aspiration Scale score ≥ 6) (p = 0.016; odds ratio = 2.17; 95% CI 1.14-4.13) and with risk of developing laryngeal granulation tissue (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Larger endotracheal tube size was associated with increased risk of aspiration and laryngeal granulation tissue. Using smaller endotracheal tubes may reduce the risk of postextubation aspiration. © 2020 International Anesthesia Research Society.

The mechanisms responsible for aspiration are relatively unknown in patients recovering from acute respiratory failure (ARF) who required mechanical ventilation. Though many conditions may contribute to swallowing dysfunction, alterations in laryngeal structure and swallowing function likely play a role in the development of aspiration. At four university-based tertiary medical centers, we conducted a prospective cohort study of ARF patients who required intensive care and mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h. Within 72 h after extubation, a Fiberoptic Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) examination was performed. Univariate and multivariable analyses examined the relationship between laryngeal structure and swallowing function abnormalities. Aspiration was the primary outcome, defined as a Penetration- Aspiration Scale (PAS) score of 6 or greater. Two other salient signs of dysphagia—spillage and residue—were secondary outcomes. A total of 213 patients were included in the final analysis. Aspiration was detected in 70 patients (33%) on at least one bolus. The most commonly aspirated consistency was thin liquids (27%). In univariate analyses, several abnormalities in laryngeal anatomy and structural movement were significantly associated with aspiration, spillage, and residue. In a multivariable analysis, the only variables that remained significant with aspiration were pharyngeal weakness (Odds ratio = 2.57, 95%CI = 1.16–5.84, p = 0.019) and upper airway edema (Odds ratio = 3.24, 95%CI = 1.44–7.66, p = 0.004). These results demonstrated that dysphagia in ARF survivors is multifactorial and characterized by both anatomic and physiologic abnormalities. These findings may have important implications for the development of novel interventions to treat dysphagia in ARF survivors. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02363686, Aspiration in Acute Respiratory FailureSurvivors. © 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Due to the errors occurred in the originally published version, this article is being reprinted in its entirety as Correction. All errors have been corrected. It is the correct version. © 2021, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Background: The bedside swallowing evaluation (BSE) is an assessment of swallowing function and airway safety during swallowing. After extubation, the BSE often is used to identify the risk of aspiration in acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors. Research Question: We conducted a multicenter prospective study of ARF survivors to determine the accuracy of the BSE and to develop a decision tree algorithm to identify aspiration risk. Study Design and Methods: Patients extubated after ≥ 48 hours of mechanical ventilation were eligible. Study procedures included the BSE followed by a gold standard evaluation, the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Results: Overall, 213 patients were included in the final analysis. Median time from extubation to BSE was 25 hours (interquartile range, 21-45 hours). The FEES was completed 1 hour after the BSE (interquartile range, 0.5-2 hours). A total of 33% (70/213; 95% CI, 26.6%-39.2%) of patients aspirated on at least one FEES bolus consistency test. Thin liquids were the most commonly aspirated consistency: 27% (54/197; 95% CI, 21%-34%). The BSE detected any aspiration with an accuracy of 52% (95% CI, 45%-58%), a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 74%-92%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81% (95% CI, 72%-91%). Using recursive partitioning analyses, a five-variable BSE-based decision tree algorithm was developed that improved the detection of aspiration with an accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 75%-87%), sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 90%-98%), and NPV of 97% (95% CI, 95%-99%). Interpretation: The BSE demonstrates variable accuracy to identify patients at high risk for aspiration. Our decision tree algorithm may enhance the BSE and may be used to identify patients at high risk for aspiration, yet requires further validation. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02363686; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov; © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians