Accuracy of Dysphagia Screening by Non-clinical Research Staff in the Emergency Department.

Although the emergency department (ED) is the initial care setting for the majority of older adults requiring hospital admission, there is a paucity of ED-based dysphagia research in this at-risk population. This is driven by barriers to dysphagia evaluation in this complex care environment. Therefore, we assessed the reliability of trained, non-clinical ED research staff in administering dysphagia screening tools compared to trained speech pathologists (SLPs). We also aimed to determine perceptual screening discrepancies (e.g. voice change) between clinical and non-clinical staff. Forty-two older adults with suspected pneumonia were recruited during an ED visit and underwent dysphagia (Toronto Bedside Swallow Screening Tool; TOR-BSST©) and aspiration (3-oz water swallow test; 3-oz WST) screening by trained non-clinical research staff. Audio-recordings of screenings were re-rated post-hoc by trained, blinded SLPs with discrepancies resolved via consensus. Cohen's kappa (unweighted) revealed moderate agreement in pass/fail ratings between clinical and non-clinical staff for both the TOR-BSST© (k = 0.75) and the 3 oz WST (k = 0.66) corresponding to excellent sensitivity and good specificity for both the TOR-BSST (SN = 94%, SP = 85%) and the 3 oz WST (SN = 90%, SP = 81%). Further analysis of TOR-BSST perceptual parameters revealed that most discrepancies between clinicians and non-clinicians resulted from over-diagnosis of change in vocal quality (53%). These results support the feasibility of non-clinical research staff administering screening tools for dysphagia and aspiration in the ED. Dysphagia screening may not necessitate clinical staff involvement, which may improve feasibility of large-scale ED research. Future training of research staff should focus on perceptual assessment of vocal quality.