4.2 Article

Evaluation of the uptake of the Australian standardized terminology and definitions for texture modified foods and fluids

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/17549507.2012.667440

Keywords

Dysphagia; texture modification; clinical standards; change management; dysphagia terminology

Funding

  1. Nestle Medical Nutrition, Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the uptake of standardized terminology and definitions for texture modified foods and fluids. The Australian dietetic and speech-language pathology associations endorsed national standards in 2007. This project sought to determine the barriers and enablers for use of the national standards in clinical practice. Cross-sectional online surveys were developed, including open- and closed-response questions. The surveys targeted different professional groups in Australia including speech-language pathologists, dietitians, nurses, and food service personnel. Australian accredited universities were contacted to determine penetration of the standards. A total of 574 surveys were received. Sixty-five per cent of respondents indicated full implementation, 23% partial implementation, and 10% no implementation of the standards in their workplace. Speech-language pathologists and dietitians were most likely to have championed implementation of the standards. Barriers to implementation included: lack of knowledge about the standards, time, and resistance to change. Enablers included: encouragement to use the standards and 'buy-in' from stakeholders. Benefits of implementation included: consistent terminology and perceived improvements in patient safety. It was concluded that the standards have been successfully implemented in a majority of facilities and Australian universities. This study provides insight into the complexity of introducing and managing change in healthcare environments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available