Comparison of trained clinician ratings with expert ratings of aspiration on videofluoroscopic images from a randomized clinical trial.

Accurate detection and classification of aspiration is a critical component of videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation, the most commonly utilized instrumental method for dysphagia diagnosis and treatment. Currently published literature indicates that interjudge reliability for the identification of aspiration ranges from poor to fairly good depending on the amount of training provided to clinicians. The majority of extant studies compared judgments among clinicians. No studies included judgments made during the use of a postural compensatory strategy. The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of judgments made by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) practicing in hospitals compared with unblinded expert judges when identifying aspiration and using the 8-point Penetration/Aspiration Scale. Clinicians received extensive training for the detection of aspiration and minimal training on use of the Penetration/Aspiration Scale. Videofluoroscopic data were collected from 669 patients as part of a large, randomized clinical trial and include judgments of 10,200 swallows made by 76 clinicians from 44 hospitals in 11 states. Judgments were made on swallows during use of dysphagia compensatory strategies: chin-down posture with thin liquids and head-neutral posture with thickened liquids (nectar-thick and honey-thick consistencies). The subject population included patients with Parkinson's disease and/or dementia. Kappa statistics indicate high accuracy for all interventions by SLPs for identification of aspiration (all kappa > 0.86) and variable accuracy (range = 69-76%) using the Penetration/Aspiration Scale when compared to expert judges. It is concluded that while the accuracy of identifying the presence of aspiration by SLPs is excellent, more extensive training and/or image enhancement is recommended for precise use of the Penetration/Aspiration Scale.

Challenges in the design and conduct of a randomized study of two interventions for liquid aspiration.

BACKGROUND: Liquid aspiration during swallowing has been linked to pneumonia, the most common cause of infectious death in the elderly. This paper examines the key issues in the design and implementation of the first multisite, randomized behavioral trial in dysphagia in an aging population. The study evaluated two commonly used treatments with respect to short-term and long-term management of liquid aspiration and subsequent pneumonia in dysphagic geriatric participants with dementia and/or Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Discussed are lessons learned during the conduct of this trial and include (1) ethical and methodological design issues, (2) pragmatic implementation of procedures and forms, (3) importance of multiple communication and monitoring strategies, (4) response to funding issues, and (5) changes in staff and facilities. RESULTS: In order to complete this trial the researchers were required to provide more support than anticipated in tasks such as completion of regulatory requirements by sites, supplementing site staff to identify potential study participants using a 'circuit rider' approach, continued recruitment of new sites and staff throughout the course of the trial, adapting forms and procedures and managing within economic constraints in a changing trial environment. LIMITATIONS: Many of the challenges faced by the researchers were not anticipated when the study began. Successful strategies are described for these unanticipated difficulties, based on retrospective evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Successful conduct of clinical trials in long-term care environments that are heavily impacted by changes extraneous to the trial design and with staff typically new to clinical trials is possible but success depends on logistical flexibility.