Understanding Dysphagia Care in the Community Setting
Factors including health policy reform and the aging population are increasing demand for quality healthcare in the community. People with dysphagia are supported by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in hospital and community settings; however, little is known about the nature of dysphagia services offered by SLPs in the community. The aim of this study was to investigate SLP services and practices provided to community-based adults with dysphagia. A national cohort (n = 144) of SLPs working with community-based clients with dysphagia completed an online survey. Results revealed that clients with neurological conditions comprised the largest proportion of the caseload. Primary referral sources were family doctors (42.4%) or other health professionals (37.5%), with low rates of self-referral. Services were primarily delivered via individual sessions (84.1%), usually within the client’s home (80% saw clients at home). While many clinicians were using both clinical and instrumental assessments, half had to refer clients to the other services to access instrumental assessment. Most provided assessment and rehabilitation services, though a few (28.5%) reported using formal outcome or quality-of-life measures. Only 43.8% referred or encouraged clients or caregivers to access support or social groups and a few SLPs incorporated social participation or client well-being aspects in treatment. Speech-language pathology (SLP) practices in the community appear similar to what occurs in the acute setting, which are inherently biomedical. This may not be optimal care for clients with dysphagia who live at home and their caregivers. Further exploration about what clients and caregivers want from community-based SLP services is warranted.
KeywordsDysphagia Clinician practices Community Deglutition Deglutition disorders
The authors wish to acknowledge the speech-language pathologists who participated in this study for sharing their practices and experiences, including those who took the time to pilot the survey and provide invaluable feedback. Thanks also go to research assistant, Georgina Klokman, who assisted with data analysis.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 3.Department of Health. Help to stay at home. https://agedcare.health.gov.au/older-people-their-families-and-carers/staying-at-home/help-to-stay-at-home (2015). Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
- 4.United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World population ageing. Report no.: ST/ESA/SERA/390. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf (2015). Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
- 7.Australian Government. National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00894/Html/Text. Accessed 1 Aug 2018.
- 9.Department of Health. Better outcomes for people with chronic and complex health conditions. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/76B2BDC12AE54540CA257F72001102B9/$File/Primary-Health-Care-Advisory-Group_Final-Report.pdf (2015). Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
- 16.Brown K, Worrall L, Davidson B, Howe T. Exploring speech-language pathologists’ perspectives about living successfully with aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46:300–11.Google Scholar
- 23.Steele CM, Allen C, Barker J, Buen P, French R, Fedorak A, et al. Dysphagia service delivery by speech-language pathologists in Canada: results of a national survey. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2007;31:12.Google Scholar
- 28.Fowler F, Cosenza C. Writing effective questions. In: de Leeuw ED, Hox J, Dillman D, editors. International handbook of survey methodology. New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 136–60.Google Scholar
- 30.Perry A, Skeat J. AusTOMS for speech pathology. Melbourne: La Trobe University; 2004.Google Scholar
- 32.Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl M, Polatajko H, Pollock N. Canadian occupational performance measure. 4th ed. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy Publications ACE; 2005.Google Scholar
- 34.Breadner BW, Warr-Leeper GA, Husband SJ. A study of public awareness of speech-language pathology: then and now. Hum Commun Can. 1987;18:10–3.Google Scholar
- 44.Geeganage C, Beavan J, Ellender S, Bath PMW. Interventions for dysphagia and nutritional support in acute and subacute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD000323.Google Scholar
- 46.Nund RL, Ward EC, Scarinci NA, Cartmill B, Kuipers P, Porceddu SV. Survivors’ experiences of dysphagia-related services following head and neck cancer: implications for clinical practice: experiences of dysphagia-related services in HNC. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014;49:354–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Speech Pathology Australia. Position paper: fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia; 2007.Google Scholar
- 49.American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Adult dysphagia: overview. https://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Clinical-Topics/Adult-Dysphagia/ (n.d.). Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
- 50.Speech Pathology Australia. Clinical guideline: dysphagia. Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia; 2012.Google Scholar
- 52.Rosenbek J, Donovan N. Oropharyngeal dysphagia outcome measurement. In: Cichero JA, Murdoch B, editors. Dysphagia found theory practice. Chichester: Wiley; 2006. p. 543–66.Google Scholar