10 / 64
64
JCPSLP
Volume 19, Number 2 2017
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
to New Zealand. The lack of prior research in the area
further impacted the questions generated for the survey,
as they were based on local and anecdotal knowledge as
opposed to previous, substantive research in the area. The
use of a survey as the only data collection medium was
also a limitation, as interviewing the participants to clarify
questions and explore themes further was not undertaken,
and may have yielded greater contextual clarity and
understanding of the nexus between speech-language
pathology and food services.
Recommendations
The present findings warrant further research into the
current practices and duties of SLPs in relation to food
services. Specifically, examination of SLP time spent on
food services tasks within existing clinical roles and
investigation of the impact of SLP input into food services in
terms of patient satisfaction and safety would be warranted.
Barriers and facilitators to SLP work within food services
should also be investigated, from the perspectives of both
SLPs and food services workers. Based on the current
findings, SLP services and managers may also wish to
consider evaluating the time that clinicians spend in food
services tasks and potentially trial a dedicated SLP role in
food services, or the allocation of dedicated time for SLP
involvement in food services tasks. Exploration of the
impact of SLP input into food services with regards to
patient outcomes, quality of services and budgetary
concerns should also be considered.
Conclusion
The survey, though preliminary, provides insight into the
current practices of SLPs in food services and potential
areas for further more formalised research in this area.
Although the majority of SLPs undertake food services
related tasks within existing clinical roles, few organisations
have dedicated food services SLP roles. The majority of
SLPs see a dedicated food services SLP role as a
potentially useful position which may have a positive effect
on communication and understanding between SLP and
food services and, ultimately, patient safety. However,
empirical investigation of the SLP role in food services is
needed before any conclusions regarding their impact can
be made.
Declarations of conflicting
interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Altman, K. W., Yu, G. P., & Schaefer, S. D. (2010).
Consequence of dysphagia in the hospitalized patient:
impact on prognosis and hospital resources.
Archives of
Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
,
136
(8), 784–789.
Australian Government Department of Health. (1994).
Rural, remote and metropolitan areas (RRMA) classification.
Retrieved from Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
http://www.aihw.gov.auBethlehem, J., & Biffignandi, S. (2011).
Handbook of web
surveys
(Vol. 567). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bourdel-Marchasson, I. (2010). How to improve
nutritional support in geriatric institutions.
Journal of the
American Medical Directors Association
,
11
(1), 13–20.
Broz, C. C. (2009).
Healthcare foodservice workers’
knowledge of dysphagia and development of a sensory
descriptor lexicon and benchmarking instrument in
Several respondents made comments about the competing
priorities of food services work, patient contact and
other responsibilities. While the majority of SLPs perceive
work in food services as valuable, absorbing these extra
food services duties into existing clinical roles may place
additional pressure on systems which are often already at
capacity. Heavy, underresourced workloads are reported
by SLPs in the literature (McLaughlin, Lincoln & Adamson,
2008) and time constraints were identified in this survey as
a barrier to undertaking food services tasks. These issues
may account, in part, for the lack of formal SLP roles in
food services to date.
Generally, most respondents were in favour of dedicated
food services SLP positions and believed there would
be benefits to patient safety and quality of care. This is
consistent with previous research of SLPs collaborating
with food services and the multidisciplinary team, resulting
in a reduction of incorrect dietary items being delivered
to patients (Zaga & Sweeney, 2014). The impact of SLP
work in food services has not been evaluated thus far;
however, dietitians working as food services managers
have reported that their allied health training supports the
integration of food services with the clinical management
of patients (Kuhn, 2014). Although few facilities within this
survey had dedicated food services SLPs, participants
reported food services meetings primarily included
dietitians, food services managers and SLPs. SLP presence
at food services meetings indicates that engagement
and collaboration between SLPs and food services
occurs, even in the absence of a dedicated food services
SLP position. This may indicate the importance of SLP
involvement in food services processes, and SLPs’ interest
in food services. Indeed, SLPs have been mentioned as
“champions” for effective change in food services practices
(Jukes et al., 2012).
Limitations
A significant limitation of this study was the lack of clear
definition of the term “dedicated”. Authors used the term to
indicate a speech pathology role with time or funding
specifically allocated to food services; however, this was
not made explicit in the survey. From subsequent
comments and responses to open-ended questions, it was
apparent most respondents interpreted the term
“dedicated” accurately. Inclusion of a “pop-up” definition for
key terms would address this issue in future surveys.
Another limitation of this study was the relatively low
response rate, which was perhaps related to the medium
of distribution (email). Although online surveys are fast,
simple and cost-effective (Bethlehem, & Biffignandi, 2011),
an inherent issue is the response rate, which is often low
(Sheehan, 2001). The addition of a follow-up contact
may have improved the response rate as would perhaps
increasing the length of time the survey was “live”. Although
the response rate was low, the spread of respondents over
six states and one territory in Australia permitted a sample
of the current state of SLP views and practices related
to SLP food services roles to be considered. However,
results should be interpreted with caution as the majority
of responses were from one state (Queensland) and most
participants were located in metropolitan settings. There
were also multiple respondents from the same facility or
health service, which may have influenced the findings
for some questions. Although a number of facilities were
invited to participate in New Zealand, the response rate
was very low (3%), limiting the applicability of these findings