Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.25(2) > 1076173

TOOLS
Lee and Choi: Development and Utilization of Assessment and Intervention Checklist for Post-stroke Dysphagia
Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2013;25(2):113-124.

Published online: 18 April 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/KJAN.2013.25.1.113

Development and Utilization of Assessment and Intervention Checklist for Post-stroke Dysphagia

Eun Ha Lee1, Ja Yun Choi2,

1Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju

2College of Nursing, Chonnam National University․CRINS, Gwangju, Korea

Corresponding author: Choi, Ja Yun College of Nursing, Chonnam National University, 5 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-746, Korea. Tel: +82-62-220-4343, Fax: +82-62-225-3307, E-mail: choijy@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 19 November 201228 March 2013       Accepted 10 April 2013

© 2013 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Purposes of this study were to develop a reliable and valid checklist to assess and manage post-stroke dysphagia and to identify its utilization.

Methods

The first step was to develop checklist through systematic literatures reviews, to test the content validity from 11 clinical experts, and to test the construct validity and the internal consistency from 97 patients with post-stroke dysphagia. The second step was to identify clinical use of the checklist from the same 97 patients.

Results

A total of 18 items compromised the assessment checklist and 64 items for intervention checklist. Internal consistencies of assessment checklist and intervention checklist were .84 and .98, respectively. In both checklists, level of utilization of general appearance was the highest, while that of early signs of aspiration was the lowest. The utilization levels of two checklists were significantly higher among patients who were less than 60 years old, and had liquid diet, facial paralysis, and previous history of aspiration pneumonia.

Conclusion

We found that the checklists were reliable and valid. Further study is needed to develop specific strategies to improve nurses' use of assessment and intervention checklists for post-stroke dysphagia.

Keywords: Deglutition disorders, Checklist, Risk assessment, Early intervention, Stroke

REFERENCES

Annesi-Maesano I.., Dab W.2006. Air pollution and the lung: Epidemiology approach. Medical Science. 22:589–594.
Baek J. Y.2007. A study on the characteristics of dysphagia of older adults with neurologic disorders. The Journal of Korean Academy of Occupational Therapy. 15(1):47–56.
Broadley S.., Croser D.., Cottrell J.., Creevy M.., Teo E.., Yiu D., et al. 2003. Predictors of prolonged dysphagia following acute stroke. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 10(3):300–305.
crossref
Carnaby G.., Hankey G. J.., Pizzi J.2006. Behavioural intervention for dysphagia in acute stroke: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurology. 2005(1):31–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70252-0.
crossref
Daniels S. K.., Ballo L. A.., Mahoney M. C.., Foundas A. L.2000. Clinical predictors of dysphagia and aspiration risk: Outcome measures in acute stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 81(8):1030–1033.
crossref
Dantas R. O.., Kern M. K.., Massey B. T.., Dodds W. J.., Kahrilas P. J.., Brasseur J. G., et al. 1990. Effect of swallowed bolus variables on oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. The American Journal of Physiology. 258(5 Pt 1):G675–681.
crossref
Faul F.., Erdfelder E.., Lang A. G.., Buchner A.2007. G∗ Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 39(2):175–191.
Foley N.., Teasell R.., Salter K.., Kruger E.., Martino R.2008. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Age and Ageing. 37(3):258–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afn064.
crossref
Han T. R.., Paik N. J.., Park J. W.1999. The functional dysphagia scale using videofluoroscopic swallowing study in stroke patients. The Journal of Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine. 23(6):1118–1126.
Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2011, November. National health insurance statical yearbook. Retrieved September 1, 2011, from. http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020045020000&cmsurl=/cms/information.
Ickenstein G. W.., Stein J.., Ambrosi D.., Goldstein R.., Horn M.., Bogdahn U.2005. Predictors of survival after severe dysphagic stroke. Journal of Neurology. 252(12):1510–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00415-005-0906-9.
crossref
Kim C. Y.2011. The development and the effect of the dysphagia assessment tool and management program for elderly in the long-term care facilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
Kumar S.., Selim M. H.., Caplan L. R.2010. Medical complications after stroke. Lancet Neurology. 9(1):105–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70266-2.
crossref
Langdon P. C.., Lee A. H.., Binns C. W.2007. Dysphagia in acute ischaemic stroke: Severity, recovery and relationship to stroke subtype. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 14(7):630–634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2006.04.009.
crossref
Mann G.., Hankey G. J.., Cameron D.1999. Swallowing function after stroke: Prognosis and prognostic factors at 6 months. Stroke. 30(4):744–748.
Moon K. H.., Sohn H. S.., Lee E. S.., Paek E. K.., Kang E. J.., Lee S. H., et al. 2010. Comparison for risk estimate of aspiration between the revised dysphagia assessment tool and videofluoroscopy in post-stroke patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 40(3):359–366.
crossref
Paek E. K.., Yoo J. S.., Moon K. H.., Kim H. J.., Lee E. S.., Lee J. H., et al. 2007. Dysphagia assessment tool for post-stroke patients. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 13(3):19–30.
Perry L.., Love C. P.2001. Screening for dysphagia and aspiration in acute stroke: A systematic review. Dysphagia. 16(1):7–18.
crossref
Research Institute of Korean Studies. 2009. Korean dictionary. Seoul: Research Institute of Korean.
Sarin J.., Balasubramaniam R.., Corcoran A. M.., Laudenbach J. M.., Stoopler E. T.2008. Reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonia among elderly patients in long-term care facilities through oral health interventions. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 9(2):128–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.10.003.
crossref
Shanley C.., O'Loughlin G.2000. Dysphagia among nursing home residents: An assessment and management protocol. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 26(8):35–48.
crossref
Statistics Korea. 2010. Annual report on the cause of death statistics. Seoul: Statistics Korea.
Sundar U.., Pahuja V.., Dwivedi N.., Yeolekar M. E.2008. Dysphagia in acute stroke: Correlation with stroke subtype, vascular territory and in-hospital respiratory morbidity and mortality. Neurology India. 56(4):463–470.
crossref

Table 1.
Pilot Test for Internal Reliability of Checklist for Post-stroke Dysphagia (N=20)
Variables Assessment Intervention
No of items Cronbach's ⍺ No of items Cronbach's ⍺
Total 19 .85 70 .98
  Awake and alert mental status 1 - 4 .23
  Sitting position for at least 15 minutes 1 - 5 .71
  Head control 1 - 3 .68
  Spontaneous cough 1 - 2 .92
  Lip open 1 - 6 .92
  Lip closing 1 - 3 .88
  Facial symmetry 1 - 4 .73
  Tongue movement 1 - 3 .88
  Jaw movement 1 - 6 .95
  Oral stasis 1 - 4 .90
  Swallow reflex 1 - 3 .92
  Wet voice 1 - 6 .95
  Shortness of breath after swallowing 1 - 3 .90
  Coughing during swallowing 1 - 4 .85
  Nasal regurgitation 1 - 2 .96
  Spontaneous cough after aspiration 1 - 2 .95
  Coughing after swallowing 1 - 5 .95
  Vomiting or regurgitation 1 - 3 .87
  Unpleasant breathing odor 1 - 2 .94

No=number.

Table 2.
Factor Analysis of Assessment Checklist for Post-stroke Dysphagia (N=97
No Components/Factor Factor loading Eigen value Explained variance (%) Accumulative variance (%)
  General appearance (3)   1.79 9.96 59.10
2   Sitting position for at least 15 minutes .84      
1   Awake and alert mental status .65
3   Head control .44
  Preparation of oropharynx (5)   2.48 13.80 38.42
10   Oral stasis .68      
11   Swallow reflex .64
18   Vomiting or regurgitation .56
6   Lip closing .53
5   Lip open .48
  Preparation of swallowing (2)   1.46 8.10 67.20
7   Facial symmetry .84      
14   Coughing during swallowing .58
  Swallowing condition (2)   1.93 10.72 49.14
4   Spontaneous cough .82      
8   Tongue movement .81
  Early symptoms of aspiration (6)   4.43 24.62 24.62
13   Shortness of breath after swallowing .86      
16   Spontaneous cough after aspiration .82
15   Nasal regurgitation .75
19   Unpleasant breathing odor .74
17   Coughing after swallowing .74
12   Wet voice .73

No=number.

Table 3.
Internal Consistency of Checklist for Post-stroke Dysphagia (N=97
Variables Assessment Intervention
No of items Cronbach's ⍺ No of items Cronbach's ⍺
Total 18 .84 64 .98
General appearance 3 .42 12 .78
  Sitting position for at least 15 minutes 1   5 .71
  Awake and alert mental status 1 4 .75
  Head control 1 3 .72
Preparation of oropharynx 5 .76 19 .96
  Oral stasis 1   4 .90
  Swallow reflex 1 3 .92
  Vomiting or regurgitation 1 3 .87
  Lip closing 1 3 .88
  Lip open 1 6 .92
Preparation of swallowing 2 .55 8 .84
  Facial symmetry 1   4 .73
  Coughing during swallowing 1 4 .85
Swallowing condition 2 .71 5 .92
  Spontaneous cough 1   2 .92
  Tongue movement 1 3 .89
Early symptoms of aspiration 6 .89 20 .99
  Shortness of breath after swallowing 1   3 .90
  Spontaneous cough after aspiration 1 2 .95
  Nasal regurgitation 1 2 .96
  Unpleasant breathing odor 1 2 .98
  Coughing after swallowing 1 5 .96
  Wet voice 1 6 .95

No=number.

Table 4.
Utilization of Checklists for Post-stroke Dysphagia (N=97)
Variables Assessment Intervention
M±SD M±SD
Total 0.42±0.21 0.36±0.31
General appearance 0.90±0.20 0.67±0.21
  Sitting position for at least 15 minutes 0.88±0.33 0.55±0.26
  Awake and alert mental status 0.98±0.14 0.80±0.21
  Head control 0.86±0.35 0.65±0.36
Preparation of oropharynx 0.37±0.34 0.33±0.37
  Oral stasis 0.41±0.49 0.39±0.43
  Swallow reflex 0.34±0.48 0.35±0.44
  Vomiting or regurgitation 0.28±0.45 0.29±0.40
  Lip closing 0.33±0.47 0.30±0.41
  Lip open 0.47±0.50 0.34±0.40
Preparation of swallowing 0.69±0.38 0.44±0.33
  Facial symmetry 0.74±0.44 0.35±0.35
  Coughing during swallowing 0.63±0.49 0.54±0.41
Swallowing 0.34±0.41 0.31±0.40
  Spontaneous cough 0.43±0.50 0.37±0.47
  Tongue movement 0.25±0.43 0.25±0.39
Early symptoms of aspiration 0.16±0.29 0.22±0.37
  Shortness of breath after swallowing 0.14±0.35 0.19±0.36
  Spontaneous cough after aspiration 0.12±0.33 0.22±0.41
  Nasal regurgitation 0.10±0.31 0.24±0.42
  Unpleasant breathing odor 0.12±0.33 0.22±0.40
  Coughing after swallowing 0.21±0.41 0.22±0.37
  Wet voice 0.24±0.43 0.25±0.39
Table 5.
Utilization of Two Checklists for Post-stroke Dysphagia according to General Characteristics (N=97)
Characteristics Categories n (%) Assessment Intervention
M±SD t or F p M±SD t or F p
Age (year) ≤59a 22 (22.7) 0.54±0.28 5.62 .005 0.47±0.33 1.65 .199
60~69b 28 (28.8) 0.40±0.21   a＞c 0.35±0.29    
≥70c 47 (48.5) 0.36±0.16   0.32±0.30
Gender Male 58 (59.8) 0.41±0.21 0.14 .890 0.36±0.30 -0.06 .956
Female 39 (40.2) 0.41±0.22     0.37±0.32    
Diet Regular dieta 54 (55.7) 0.39±0.16 9.84 c ＜.001 0.33±0.26 3.11 .030
Soft dietb 15 (15.5) 0.32±0.11   c＞a, b, d 0.28±0.27    
Liquid dietc 11 (11.3) 0.70±0.28   0.61±0.33
Water feedingd 17 (17.5) 0.37±0.26   0.38±0.40
Stroke site Left cerebrum 47 (48.4) 0.40±0.23 1.05 .373 0.36±0.31 1.83 .148
Right cerebrum 12 (22.7) 0.44±0.21     0.41±0.33    
Brain stem 15 (15.5) 0.35±0.14 0.22±0.12
Other 13 (13.4) 0.48±0.23 0.47±0.35
Paralysis site Right 50 (51.5) 0.40±0.21 0.39 .764 0.38±0.32 0.61 .608
Left 29 (29.9) 0.45±0.22     0.38±0.31    
Limbs 7 (7.3) 0.41±0.30 0.29±0.30
None 11 (11.3) 0.38±0.20 0.26±0.23
Facial palsy Yes 77 (79.4) 0.43±0.23 2.97 .004 0.37±0.31 0.61 .546
No 20 (20.6) 0.32±0.12     0.33±0.30    
History of aspiration pneumonia Yes 7 (7.2) 0.80±0.35 3.12 .020 0.72±0.38 3.32 .001
No 90 (92.8) 0.38±0.17     0.34±0.28    
Previous CVA Yes 10 (10.3) 0.42±0.24 0.15 .881 0.26±0.20 -1.11 .272
No 87 (89.7) 0.41±0.21     0.38±0.31    
Type of CVA† Large artery atherosclerosis 28 (28.9) 0.47±0.26 1.67 .194 0.44±0.34 1.15 .323
Cardioembolism 44 (45.4) 0.37±0.18     0.34±0.31    
Small artery occlusion 23 (23.6) 0.42±0.23 0.33±0.27
Stroke severity‡ Mild 68 (70.1) 0.41±0.18 0.35 .708 0.35±0.27 0.40 .679
Moderate 20 (20.6) 0.44±0.30     0.40±0.37    
Severe 9 (9.3) 0.37±0.26 0.42±0.42

CVA=cardiovascular attack.

† Excluded 2 undetermined cases;

‡ Stroke severity was three levels as mild, moderate and severe, and range scores for three levels were 0 to 5, 6 to 13, and 14 and more than 14 in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), respectively.

TOOLS
Similar articles