136
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 3 2014
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
Allied health professional perspectives
Twenty-four responses to the online survey were received (a
response rate could not be determined given indirect
recruitment of AHPs). Results indicated overwhelming
support for all service elements; however the items rated
most often as
extremely important
were that “training be
provided for DSWs in mealtime assistance” (23/24),
“mealtime guidelines be developed for all people needing
them” (21/24), and “disability organisations have dysphagia
policies” (21/24).
According to the AHPs who completed the survey, DSWs
should be offered continuing educational opportunities in
dysphagia and meal assistance, rather than discrete, one-
off workshops. This group also identified documentation
and compliance with mealtime guidelines as priorities.
modified food” (14/16), and “people who need full meal
assistance get 1:1 assistance at mealtimes” (14/16). A
number of respondents expressed a desire that DSWs
provide individual attention to their relative during meal
assistance and interact in a warm and compassionate
manner. Having DSWs with the skills and knowledge to
meet the needs of people with dysphagia was indicated as
a priority. Respondents highlighted the importance of
compliance with mealtime guidelines and regular training
opportunities to accommodate for high staff turnover.
Seven family members indicated speech pathology
services as the most valuable support for their relative,
including two who called for better access to these
services. Respondents also appreciated speech
pathologists consulting closely with families and respecting
the family’s preferences.
Table 4. Combined questionnaire results – family, DSW and allied health professionals
Unimportant
n(%)
Neither
n(%)
Important
n(%)
Extremely
important
n(%)
Valid
cases
1. Training be provided for support workers in mealtime assistance
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (7%)
53 (93%)
57
2. Training be mandatory for support workers involved in mealtime
assistance
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
12 (21%)
44 (77%)
57
3. Training be provided for support workers in the preparation of
thickened drinks and texture modified food
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
9 (16%)
47 (82%)
57
4. Mealtime assistance training be accredited
1 (2%)
5 (9%)
28 (50%)
22 (39%)
56
5. People who need full mealtime assistance get 1:1 assistance at
mealtimes
0 (0%)
2 (4%)
15 (26%)
40 (70%)
57
6. Mealtime guidelines be developed for all people needing them
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
12 (22%)
43 (78%)
55
7. People with disability are consulted as much as possible when their
mealtime guidelines are being developed
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
15 (27%)
40 (73%)
55
8. Family members are consulted as much as possible when mealtime
guidelines for their relative are being developed
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
25 (44%)
31 (54%)
57
9. The preferences, choices and decisions of people with disability are
paramount when developing mealtime guidelines
0 (0%)
4 (7%)
20 (36%)
32 (57%)
56
10. Mealtime equipment be attractive and aesthetically pleasing
1 (2%)
17 (30%)
22 (38%)
17 (30%)
57
11. Height adjustable chairs be available for people assisting
0 (0%)
5 (9%)
31 (54%)
21 (37%)
57
12. People are meal assisted in supportive environments
0 (0%)
2 (3%)
33 (58%)
22 (39%)
57
13. People with disability are weighed regularly
0 (0%)
3 (5%)
34 (61%)
19 (34%)
56
14. The target weight or healthy weight range of people with disability is
identified and documented
0 (0%)
5 (9%)
32 (56%)
20 (35%)
57
15. Making healthy food choices is encouraged and actively promoted
0 (0%)
2 (3%)
34 (60%)
21 (37%)
57
16. Disability organisations have dysphagia policies
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
9 (16%)
46 (82%)
56
17. Disability organisations have choking incident reporting and referral
procedures
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
14 (24%)
42 (74%)
57
18. Nutrition and swallowing risk screening occurs for people at risk
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
12 (21%)
43 (75%)
57
19. Greater emphasis on collaborative approaches to dysphagia
management
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
17 (30%)
38 (68%)
56
20. Greater emphasis on a multidisciplinary team approach to dysphagia
management
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
20 (35%)
37 (65%)
57
