Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the "standardized endoscopic swallowing evaluation for tracheostomy decannulation in critically ill neurologic patients".
Decannulation
Dysphagia
FEES
Intensive care
Swallowing
Tracheostomy
Journal
Neurological research and practice
ISSN: 2524-3489
Titre abrégé: Neurol Res Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101767802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
03
02
2020
accepted:
03
03
2020
entrez:
16
12
2020
pubmed:
17
12
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Removal of a tracheostomy tube in critically ill neurologic patients is a difficult issue, particularly due to the high incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia. For an objective evaluation of decannulation readiness the "Standardized Endoscopic Swallowing Evaluation for Tracheostomy Decannulation in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients" (SESETD) - a stepwise evaluation of 'secretion management', 'spontaneous swallows' and 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' - has been introduced. With the recent study detailed data on inter-rater and test-retest reliability are presented. To obtain inter-rater reliability levels both in a group of raters with at least 5 years of experience ('experts') and in a group of raters with no or only minor experience using the SESETD ('non-experts'), for each single item of the protocol and the sum score α-, respectively κ-levels were determined. The 'experts' assessed the same videos after a four-week interval to determine test-retest reliability. Ten videos from tracheostomized neurological patients completely weaned from mechanical ventilation were assessed independently by six 'experts'. 27 'non-experts' applied the SESETD on 5 videos from the same patient population after introduction to the protocol in a one-hour workshop. For the items 'secretion management' and 'spontaneous swallows' α-levels were identified at > 0.800 both in the group of 'experts' and 'non-experts'. With regard to the item 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' in both groups, the α-level was ≥0.667. With κ-levels of 1.0 for 'secretion management', 0.93 for 'spontaneous swallows' and 0.76 for 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' test-retest reliability showed at least substantial agreement for each item. Intraclass correlation coefficient for the sum score was excellent in both groups (α ≥ 0.90). The SESETD demonstrates good to excellent agreement for each single item included as well as the sum score in experienced and unexperienced raters supporting its usefulness for implementation in daily clinical routine and as an outcome measure for clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Removal of a tracheostomy tube in critically ill neurologic patients is a difficult issue, particularly due to the high incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia. For an objective evaluation of decannulation readiness the "Standardized Endoscopic Swallowing Evaluation for Tracheostomy Decannulation in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients" (SESETD) - a stepwise evaluation of 'secretion management', 'spontaneous swallows' and 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' - has been introduced. With the recent study detailed data on inter-rater and test-retest reliability are presented.
METHODS
METHODS
To obtain inter-rater reliability levels both in a group of raters with at least 5 years of experience ('experts') and in a group of raters with no or only minor experience using the SESETD ('non-experts'), for each single item of the protocol and the sum score α-, respectively κ-levels were determined. The 'experts' assessed the same videos after a four-week interval to determine test-retest reliability. Ten videos from tracheostomized neurological patients completely weaned from mechanical ventilation were assessed independently by six 'experts'. 27 'non-experts' applied the SESETD on 5 videos from the same patient population after introduction to the protocol in a one-hour workshop.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For the items 'secretion management' and 'spontaneous swallows' α-levels were identified at > 0.800 both in the group of 'experts' and 'non-experts'. With regard to the item 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' in both groups, the α-level was ≥0.667. With κ-levels of 1.0 for 'secretion management', 0.93 for 'spontaneous swallows' and 0.76 for 'laryngeal sensibility/cough' test-retest reliability showed at least substantial agreement for each item. Intraclass correlation coefficient for the sum score was excellent in both groups (α ≥ 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The SESETD demonstrates good to excellent agreement for each single item included as well as the sum score in experienced and unexperienced raters supporting its usefulness for implementation in daily clinical routine and as an outcome measure for clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33324915
doi: 10.1186/s42466-020-00055-3
pii: 55
pmc: PMC7650070
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Gerontology. 2003 Jan-Feb;49(1):12-20
pubmed: 12457045
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2015 Oct;22(4):357-64
pubmed: 26348694
Ann Rehabil Med. 2013 Feb;37(1):96-102
pubmed: 23525725
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996 Feb;105(2):92-7
pubmed: 8659942
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(4):325-31
pubmed: 15359100
Dysphagia. 2018 Apr;33(2):192-199
pubmed: 28866750
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Sep;133(3):366-71
pubmed: 16143183
Crit Care. 2008;12(1):R26
pubmed: 18302759
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Oct;273(10):3215-8
pubmed: 27173156
Dysphagia. 2017 Dec;32(6):725-733
pubmed: 28779300
Dysphagia. 2016 Dec;31(6):721-729
pubmed: 27530728
Stat Med. 2006 May 15;25(9):1547-60
pubmed: 16143966
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(1):41-7
pubmed: 18511871
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2018 Jun;37(3):281-294
pubmed: 29559211
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015 Mar;124(3):187-93
pubmed: 25225213
BMC Neurol. 2011 Mar 11;11:34
pubmed: 21392404
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Mar-Apr;28(3):260-72
pubmed: 24297761
Muscle Nerve. 2019 Feb;59(2):194-200
pubmed: 30390307
Dysphagia. 1996 Spring;11(2):99-103
pubmed: 8721067
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997 Feb;106(2):87-93
pubmed: 9041811
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jun;12(4):430-437
pubmed: 27807279
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jun;140(7):1927-33
pubmed: 21420407
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011 May-Jun;20(3):183-7
pubmed: 20621518
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):849-859
pubmed: 30170898
Am J Med. 2000 Mar 6;108 Suppl 4a:8S-14S
pubmed: 10718445
Crit Care Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2396-405
pubmed: 23939361
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(6):312-7
pubmed: 25033761
Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2014 Jan;16(1):274
pubmed: 24357462
Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1728-32
pubmed: 23774336
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017 Aug 15;26(3):729-736
pubmed: 28732098
Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2017;7(3):130-139
pubmed: 28972945
Respir Care. 2005 Apr;50(4):511-5
pubmed: 15807913
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Apr;265(4):441-6
pubmed: 17968575
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;28(3):283-9
pubmed: 19609080
Nervenarzt. 2014 Aug;85(8):1006-15
pubmed: 25060752
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Intensive Care. 2017 Jun 20;5:38
pubmed: 28649385
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003 May;112(5):469-75
pubmed: 12784989
Respir Care. 2010 Aug;55(8):1056-68
pubmed: 20667153
Dysphagia. 1998 Spring;13(2):87-92
pubmed: 9513302