RESUMO
DIGEST is a validated, open-source method to grade the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia from the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. Dissemination and implementation of DIGEST is rising, making it critical to understand reliability and facilitators of accurate implementation among users. The aim was to assess reliability of the tool among speech-language pathology (SLP) raters practicing at multiple sites before and after review of a DIGEST training manual and evaluate confidence of DIGEST use pre-and post-training. Thirty-two SLPs from 5 sites participated in a blinded longitudinal DIGEST rating study. Raters were provided a standardized training set of MBS (n = 19). Initial SLP ratings (round 1, R1) were followed by a 2-4 week break before raters rated a re-keyed MBS set (round 2, R2). A minimum 4-8 week wash-out period then preceded self-study of the DIGEST training manual which was followed by a final rating (round 3, R3) and a post-manual survey afterwards. Baseline reliability (R1) of overall DIGEST was on average k = 0.70, reflecting agreement in the substantial range. Seventy-five percent of raters (24/32) demonstrated reliability ≥ 0.61 in the substantial to almost perfect range prior to training. Inter-rater reliability significantly improved from R1 to R3 after review of the DIGEST manual, with the largest change in DIGEST-Efficiency (mean change: DIGEST k = .04, p = .009, DIGEST-Safety k = .07, p = 0.03, and DIGEST-Efficiency k = .14, p = 0.009). Although DIGEST reliability at baseline was adequate in the majority of raters, self-study of the DIGEST training manual significantly improved inter-rater reliability and rater confidence using the DIGEST method, particularly when assigning DIGEST-Efficiency grade. These early data show promise that provider training may be useful to aid in fidelity of DIGEST implementation among SLP clinical users with varying DIGEST experience.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Following the COVID-19 directive to cease non-essential services, a rapid shift was made in the delivery of Speech Language Pathology (SLP) dysphagia management in the 3-arm, randomized PRO-ACTIVE trial. To inform future programs, this study explored patients' experiences with telehealth when the planned in-person SLP intervention was moved to a telehealth modality. METHODS: A theory-guided qualitative descriptive approach was used. Willing participants who had received at least one telehealth swallowing therapy session participated in a one-time semi-structured interview. Interview transcripts were subjected to a standard qualitative content/theme analysis. Researchers reviewed all transcripts and used a multi-step analysis process to build a coding framework through consensus discussion. Summaries and key messages were generated for each code. RESULTS: Eleven participants recounted their telehealth experiences and reported feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident with the session(s). They identified that previous experience with teleconferencing, access to optimal technical equipment, clinician skill, and caregiver assistance facilitated their telehealth participation. Participants highlighted that telehealth was beneficial as it reduced commuting time, COVID-19 exposure and fatigue from travel; and also allowed caregiver participation particularly during COVID. In comparing their in-person SLP sessions to telehealth sessions, limitations were also identified, including: lack of previous experience with and/or poor access to technology, and less opportunity for personalization. Participants indicated that use of phone alone was less preferred than an audio/video platform. DISCUSSION: Patients reported that overall, telehealth sessions did not compromise their learning experience when compared to in-person sessions. Patients benefited from use of telehealth in several ways despite some limitations of the use of technology. Patient feedback about telehealth provides an important perspective that may be critical to inform best practices for care delivery.