Faculty Opinions recommendation of Benefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild Hypertension.

The studySheppard JP, Stevens S, Stevens R, Martin U, Mant J, Hobbs R, McManus R. Benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment in low-risk patients with mild hypertension.Published on 1 December 2018 JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1626-34.This project was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR-RP-R2-12-O15) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) Strategic Skills Postdoctoral Fellowship.To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000713/lifestyle-changes-for-mild-hypertension-rather-than-drugs

Download Full-text

Exploring the Validity and Operational Impact of Using Allied Health Assistants to Conduct Dysphagia Screening for Low-Risk Patients Within the Acute Hospital Setting

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00060 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 1944-1955 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maria Schwarz ◽

Elizabeth C. Ward ◽

Petrea Cornwell ◽

Anne Coccetti ◽

Pamela D'Netto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Allied Health ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Hospital Setting ◽

Low Risk ◽

False Negatives ◽

Exact Agreement ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Impact Phase ◽

Operational Impact

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.

Download Full-text