4.0 Review

Dysphagia Screening Measures for Use in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF KOREAN ACADEMY OF NURSING
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 1-13

出版社

KOREAN SOC NURSING SCIENCE
DOI: 10.4040/jkan.2015.45.1.1

关键词

Deglutition disorders; Nursing; Nursing homes; Screening; Systematic review

类别

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2010-0003738]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0003738] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric quality and feasibility of measurements for screening dysphagia in older adults to identify the 'right tool' for nurses to use in nursing homes. Methods: A systematic review was done. Electronic databases were searched for studies related to dysphagia screening measurements. A checklist was used to evaluate the psychometric quality and applicability. Tools were evaluated for feasible incorporation into routine care by nurses. Results: 29 tools from 31 studies were identified. Dysphagia screening tools with an acceptable validity and reliability had sensitivity between 68% and 100% and specificity between 52% and 100%. The Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS) and the Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA) were the tools with high psychometric quality, especially with high sensitivity, that nurses could perform feasibly to identify the risk and to grade the severity of dysphagia and aspiration of nursing home residents. Conclusion: Results show that GUSS and SSA are reliable and sensitive tools for screening dysphagia which nurses can use in nursing homes. Further research is needed to examine feasibility of screening with identified tools, and also, to establish effective and standardized protocols for these tools so they can be effectively incorporated into routine care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据