3.8 Article

Implementing oral care to reduce aspiration pneumonia amongst patients with dysphagia in a South African setting

Journal

Publisher

AOSIS
DOI: 10.4102/sajcd.v63i1.102

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oral care is a crucial routine for patients with dysphagia that, when completed routinely, can prevent the development of aspiration pneumonia. There is no standardised protocol for oral care within government hospitals in South Africa. This study aimed to investigate the outcome of an oral care protocol. Participants were patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, with either stroke or traumatic brain injury as the underlying medical pathology, and nurses. All participants were recruited from one tertiary level government hospital in Gauteng, South Africa. 139 nurses participated in the study and received training on the oral care protocol. There were two groups of participants with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Group one (study group, n = 23) was recruited by consecutive sampling, received regular oral care and were not restricted from drinking water; however, all other liquids were restricted. Group two (comparison group, n = 23) was recruited via a retrospective record review, received inconsistent oral care and were placed on thickened liquids or liquid restricted diets. Results showed that a regimen of regular oral care and free water provision when combined with dysphagia intervention did prevent aspiration pneumonia in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. The article highlights two key findings: that regular and routine oral care is manageable within an acute government hospital context and a strict routine of oral care can reduce aspiration pneumonia in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. An implication from these findings is confirmation that teamwork in acute care settings in developing contexts must be prioritised to improve dysphagia management and patient prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available