Search

Background: Competent clinical reasoning forms the foundation for effective and efficient clinical swallowing examination (CSE) and consequent dysphagia management decisions. While the nature of initial CSEs has been evaluated, it remains unclear how new information gathered by speech–language therapists (SLTs) throughout a patient's acute‐care journey is integrated into their initial clinical reasoning and management processes and used to review and revise initial management recommendations. Aims: To understand how SLTs' clinical reasoning and decision‐making regarding dysphagia assessment and management evolve as patients transition through acute hospital care from referral to discharge. Methods & Procedures: A longitudinal, qualitative approach was employed to gather information from two SLTs who managed six patients at a metropolitan acute‐care hospital. A retrospective 'think‐aloud' protocol was utilized to prompt SLTs regarding their clinical reasoning and decision‐making processes during initial and subsequent CSEs and patient interactions. Three types of concept maps were created based on these interviews: a descriptive concept map, a reasoning map and a hypothesis map. All concept maps were evaluated regarding their overall structure, facts gathered, types of reasoning engaged in (inductive versus deductive), types of hypotheses generated, and the diagnosis and management recommendations made following initial CSE and during subsequent dysphagia management. Outcomes & Results: Initial CSEs involved a rich process of fact‐gathering, that was predominantly led by inductive reasoning (hypothesis generation) and some application of deductive reasoning (hypothesis testing), with the primary aims of determining the presence of dysphagia and identifying the safest diet and fluid recommendations. During follow‐up assessments, SLTs engaged in increasingly more deductive testing of initial hypotheses, including fact‐gathering aimed at determining the tolerance of current diet and fluid recommendations or the suitability for diet and/or fluid upgrade and less inductive reasoning. Consistent with this aim, SLTs' hypotheses were focused primarily on airway protection and medical status during the follow‐up phase. Overall, both initial and follow‐up swallowing assessments were targeted primarily at identifying suitable management recommendations, and less so on identifying and formulating diagnoses. None of the patients presented with adverse respiratory and/or swallowing outcomes during admission and following discharge from speech pathology. Conclusions & Implications: Swallowing assessment and management across the acute‐care journey was observed as a high‐quality, patient‐centred process characterized by iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning. This approach appears to maximize efficiency without compromising the quality of care. The outcomes of this research encourage further investigation and translation to tertiary and post‐professional education contexts as a clear understanding of the processes involved in reaching diagnoses and management recommendations can inform career‐long refinement of clinical skills. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: SLTs' clinical reasoning processes during initial CSE employ iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning, reflecting a patient‐centred assessment process. To date it is unknown how SLTs engage in clinical reasoning during follow‐up assessments of swallowing function, how they assess the appropriateness of initial management recommendations and how this relates to patient outcomes. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: Our longitudinal evaluation of clinical reasoning and decision‐making patterns related to swallowing management in acute care demonstrated that SLTs tailored their processes to each patient's presentation. There was an emphasis on monitoring the suitability of the initial management recommendations and the potential for upgrade of diet or compensatory swallowing strategies. The iterative cycles of inductive and deductive reasoning reflect efficient decision‐making processes that maintain high‐quality clinical care within the acute environment. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Employing efficient and high‐quality clinical reasoning is a hallmark of good dysphagia practice in maximizing positive patient outcomes. Developing approaches to understanding and making explicit clinical reasoning processes of experienced clinicians may assist SLTs of all developmental stages to provide high standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Person‐centred services are inherently related to patients/caregivers' needs. However, the extent to which dysphagia services within Singapore meet consumer needs is largely unknown. Involving patients/caregivers in service evaluation/redesign deepens the understanding of consumer needs. This process also increases the success of implementing service enhancements through relevant and meaningful change. Aim: This study aimed to identify aspects of dysphagia services, within acute and subacute settings in Singapore, perceived as highly important and easy to change by patients/caregivers. Methods & Procedures: Using concept mapping methodology, 5 patients and 11 caregivers reflected on their experiences of receiving dysphagia care and proposed 59 unique suggestions to improve dysphagia services within Singapore. Then, each individual sorted the suggestions into groups based on similarity and rated each statement for its perceived importance and changeability for service enhancement. Data were analysed using multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and bivariate analysis to generate clusters of conceptually similar suggestions and a prioritised list of suggestions for service enhancement. Results: Twelve clusters were identified, with most rated as more important than changeable for service improvement. Participants prioritised 23 (39%) of the suggestions as highly important and easy to change, and these focused on ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. Conclusion: These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients/caregivers. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Little is known about patients and caregivers' experiences and expectations of receiving dysphagia services in Singapore. Consulting them in service review and improvement deepens understanding of their needs and increases the success of implementing meaningful service enhancements. What this study adds to existing knowledge: This study shows that patients and caregivers in Singapore identified a wide range of dysphagia service issues and prioritised a list of suggestions for service improvement. They prioritised four key areas for service optimisation: ensuring effective communication among consumers and healthcare team, enhancing patients and carers' access to support at home, increasing patients and carers' access to educational resources, and improving service quality and access through technology. What are the clinical implications of this work?: This research highlights the importance of considering the consumers' perspectives in service review and redesign. Patients and caregivers in Singapore identified four prioritised areas for service enhancements. These findings provide future directions on how to develop and implement dysphagia services in Singapore to better meet the needs of patients and caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]