渴望,风险和风险喂养:对皇家医师学院关于饮食困难患者护理指导的批评

S. O’Keeffe, A. Murray, P. Leslie, Lindsey Collins, Tracy Lazenby-Paterson, A. McCurtin, S. Mulkerrin, Alison Smith
{"title":"渴望,风险和风险喂养:对皇家医师学院关于饮食困难患者护理指导的批评","authors":"S. O’Keeffe, A. Murray, P. Leslie, Lindsey Collins, Tracy Lazenby-Paterson, A. McCurtin, S. Mulkerrin, Alison Smith","doi":"10.3233/acs-210031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Royal College of Physicians has recently published guidance on supporting people with eating and drinking difficulties. Although much of the advice in the guidance is sensible and helpful, in this paper we argue that the recommendations regarding ‘risk feeding’ decisions are flawed. In particular, there is a failure to clearly identify the nature, frequency and severity of different risks. There is an undue emphasis on aspiration as a risk and as a potential cause of pneumonia, and the limited evidence base for many interventions to manage risk is not adequately acknowledged. There is an emphasis on multidisciplinary team decision making at the expense of individual professional responsibility. We conclude that this guidance regarding risk feeding supports an unduly defensive approach to oral intake and should not be adopted as a standard of medical practice.","PeriodicalId":93726,"journal":{"name":"Advances in communication and swallowing","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aspiration, risk and risk feeding: A critique of the royal college of physicians guidance on care of people with eating and drinking difficulties\",\"authors\":\"S. O’Keeffe, A. Murray, P. Leslie, Lindsey Collins, Tracy Lazenby-Paterson, A. McCurtin, S. Mulkerrin, Alison Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/acs-210031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Royal College of Physicians has recently published guidance on supporting people with eating and drinking difficulties. Although much of the advice in the guidance is sensible and helpful, in this paper we argue that the recommendations regarding ‘risk feeding’ decisions are flawed. In particular, there is a failure to clearly identify the nature, frequency and severity of different risks. There is an undue emphasis on aspiration as a risk and as a potential cause of pneumonia, and the limited evidence base for many interventions to manage risk is not adequately acknowledged. There is an emphasis on multidisciplinary team decision making at the expense of individual professional responsibility. We conclude that this guidance regarding risk feeding supports an unduly defensive approach to oral intake and should not be adopted as a standard of medical practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in communication and swallowing\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in communication and swallowing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/acs-210031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in communication and swallowing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/acs-210031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

英国皇家内科医师学院最近发布了关于支持饮食困难人群的指导意见。尽管指南中的许多建议是明智和有益的,但在本文中,我们认为关于“风险喂养”决策的建议是有缺陷的。特别是,未能清楚地识别不同风险的性质、频率和严重程度。人们过分强调误吸是一种风险,也是肺炎的潜在病因,而许多管理风险的干预措施的证据基础有限,这一点没有得到充分承认。强调以牺牲个人专业责任为代价的多学科团队决策。我们的结论是,这一关于风险喂养的指导支持了一种过度防御的口服摄入方法,不应该被采纳为医疗实践的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Aspiration, risk and risk feeding: A critique of the royal college of physicians guidance on care of people with eating and drinking difficulties
The Royal College of Physicians has recently published guidance on supporting people with eating and drinking difficulties. Although much of the advice in the guidance is sensible and helpful, in this paper we argue that the recommendations regarding ‘risk feeding’ decisions are flawed. In particular, there is a failure to clearly identify the nature, frequency and severity of different risks. There is an undue emphasis on aspiration as a risk and as a potential cause of pneumonia, and the limited evidence base for many interventions to manage risk is not adequately acknowledged. There is an emphasis on multidisciplinary team decision making at the expense of individual professional responsibility. We conclude that this guidance regarding risk feeding supports an unduly defensive approach to oral intake and should not be adopted as a standard of medical practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Speech-language pathologists’ experience with nursing initiated texture modified diets in health care settings Cough effectiveness during airway invasion in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia: A systematic review of literature Speech and language therapy services for autistic children in Munster: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of parental experiences and expectations “You’ll find most people who got involved with the Café couldn’t do without it now” – Socialising in an online versus in-person Aphasia Café Exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of individuals with communication and swallowing difficulties associated with Long-COVID
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1