↓ Skip to main content

Dysphagia screening after acute stroke: a quality improvement project using criteria-based clinical audit

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dysphagia screening after acute stroke: a quality improvement project using criteria-based clinical audit
Published in
BMC Nursing, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-017-0222-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorun Sivertsen, Birgitte Graverholt, Birgitte Espehaug

Abstract

Dysphagia is common after stroke and represents a major risk factor for developing aspiration pneumonia. Early detection can reduce the risk of pulmonary complications and death. Despite the fact that evidence-based guidelines recommend screening for swallowing deficit using a standardized screening tool, national audits has identified a gap between practice and this recommendation. The aim was to determine the level of adherence to an evidence-based recommendation on swallow assessment and to take actions to improve practice if necessary. We carried out a criteria-based clinical audit (CBCA) in a small stroke unit at a Norwegian hospital. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack were included. A power calculation informed the number of included patients at baseline (n = 80) and at re-audit (n = 35). We compared the baseline result with the evidence-based criteria and gave feedback to management and staff. A brainstorming session, a root-cause analysis and implementation science were used to inform the quality improvement actions which consisted of workshops, use of local opinion leaders, manual paper reminders and feedback. We completed a re-audit after implementation. Percentages and median are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 88 cases at baseline, documentation of swallow screening was complete for 6% (95% CI 2-11). In the re-audit (n = 51) 61% (95% CI 45-74) had a complete screening. A CBCA involving management and staff, and using multiple tailored intervention targeting barriers, led to greater adherence with the recommendation for screening stroke patients for dysphagia.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 32 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 36 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#19,624,055
of 24,135,931 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#638
of 836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,168
of 321,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#19
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,135,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.