1. Reliability of Scoring Penetration-aspiration from Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing by Novel and Experienced Clinicians.
- Author
-
Krishnan, Gayathri, Swapna, N., Prakash, T. K., Chandran, Sindhusha, Chandrashekariah, Bilvashree, and Sivaranjani, P.
- Subjects
SPEECH therapists ,RESEARCH methodology evaluation ,HEALTH occupations students ,STATISTICAL sampling ,ENDOSCOPIC surgery ,RANDOMIZED controlled trials ,RESEARCH methodology ,DEGLUTITION ,COMPARATIVE studies ,AIRWAY (Anatomy) ,STUDENT attitudes ,DEGLUTITION disorders ,ENDOSCOPY ,RELIABILITY (Personality trait) - Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies estimating the reliability of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) for scoring flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES®) have not considered prior experience in the procedure as an influencing factor. The current study aimed to compare the PAS scores assigned to a set of random, blinded endoscopic swallow studies across entirely novel and experienced FEES® clinicians. Methods: Expert clinicians independently rated a set of FEES® swallows, and novel clinicians did the same after a quick orientation and demonstration on components of PAS. The scores agreed upon by the expert clinicians were considered as a target score for each swallow against which the scores assigned by novel clinicians were compared. Results: Results revealed a significant difference in PAS scores across the two groups for all swallows except the first, postorientation (P < 0.05) probably indicating an immediate training effect that was not maintained. Analysis on learning pattern among the novel clinicians revealed no specific trend but suggested that the clinicians could identify normal and abnormal airway protection in majority of the trials, but had difficulty assigning the correct PAS scores. The penetration to the level of the glottis was most often incorrectly scored. Conclusion: The current study warns the clinicians about reliability of PAS scores communicated as a factor of clinical experience of the examiner who conducted the study. These results imply the need for task-specific training when it comes to implementation of tools in clinical science. Such training may help improve uniform practice and professional communication of patient-related data more reliable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF