Abstract
Background
We implemented a multi-disciplinary process improvement intervention at our Comprehensive Stroke Center with speech/language pathologists to expedite oral medication delivery in stroke patients. Following a failed nursing dysphagia screen, trained neurology physicians screened dysphagia further to approve use of oral medications. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of this intervention.
Methods
We analyzed retrospectively collected data for hospital course, timing of first screen, first oral medication use, and complications (e.g., aspiration pneumonia) in consecutive ischemic stroke patients (9/2019-07/2021). Patients were included if they passed a dysphagia assessment by physicians (Ph), nurses (RN), or speech/language pathologists (SLP). Arrival-to-dysphagia screen and arrival-to-antithrombotic were assessed using restricted mean survival time (RMST).
Results
Of the 789 included patients, 673 were passed by RN, 104 by SLP, and 12 by Ph. Compared to patients passed by SLP, those passed by Ph were younger and had less severe deficits (P < .01 for both). Patients were screened more quickly by Ph than RN or SLP (median 38 vs 182 vs 1330-min post-arrival, P = .0001; 299-min RMST difference vs RN [95%CI 22-575, P = .03]; 470-min RMST difference vs SLP [95%CI 175-765, P = .002]). This translated to faster oral antithrombotic use for Ph-passed patients (138-min RMST difference vs RN [95%CI 59-216]; 332-min RMST difference vs SLP [95%CI 253-411]). No patients passed by Ph experienced aspiration pneumonia (0%).
Conclusions
We safely conducted a physician-driven dysphagia screening paradigm which led to faster oral antithrombotic delivery without signal of patient harm. Physician availability to complete dysphagia screens in acute stroke patients was a limitation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
