Managing Dysphagia in the Adult Approaching End of Life

Abstract

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Jul 2004Managing Dysphagia in the Adult Approaching End of LifeTechnology at End of Life Questioned Alyssa Levy, Linda Dominguez-Gasson, Elizabeth Brown and Cara Frederick Alyssa Levy Google Scholar More articles by this author , Linda Dominguez-Gasson Google Scholar More articles by this author , Elizabeth Brown Google Scholar More articles by this author and Cara Frederick Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.09132004.1 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Speech-language pathologists require a specialized set of skills to treat end of life (EOL) patients with dysphagia. SLPs must advance their diagnostic and prognostic skills, adapt treatment plans, and facilitate patient/family communications. The EOL population includes patients who are seriously ill and exhibit multiple comorbidities such as advanced age, progressive disease, or advanced dementia, and does not include patients in persistent vegetative state. The technology of artificial hydration and nutrition (AHN) may prolong a patient’s life, but at what cost? Callahan (1993) notes, “Advanced technology has allowed life support, including AHN, to become common healthcare practice; however, a major dilemma arises when clinicians must determine when technologies stop benefiting and actually become harmful to patients.” The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine states that when a person approaches death, AHN is potentially harmful, may provide little or no benefit to the patient, and may make the period of dying more uncomfortable for both the patient and family. The Academy finds metabolic function naturally declines at EOL and that the body cannot adequately utilize nutrition and hydration. A longstanding assumption exists within the medical community that AHN benefits patients by prolonging life, minimizing aspiration, and promoting nutrition while healing wounds and improving function (Post, 2001). This is true in some populations. However, AHN does not prolong life in patients with terminal illness, chronic/progressive illness, and those with advanced dementia. In addition, research about withholding or withdrawing nutrition and hydration dispels some common beliefs about what happens to the body during the dying process. For example: Terminally ill patients naturally stop wanting food and fluids (Schmitz, 1991; Printz, 1988; Zerwekh, 1983); patients do not die of starvation, but of dehydration (Smith & Andrews, 2000); and patients report that dehydration has an analgesic effect, thereby increasing patient comfort (Post, 2001; Smith & Andrews, 2000). While some people experience dry mouth and a sensation of thirst, this can be alleviated with good oral care and small sips of water (Daly, 2000; McCann, Hall, & Groth-Juncker, 1994). It is important to note that AHN does not necessarily prevent aspiration, and can be associated with increased pneumonia and pneumonia death. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feedings cannot be expected to prevent aspiration of oral secretions, and hyperalimentation causes formula to reflux into the esophagus and pharynx causing aspiration. Finally, tube feeding does not always improve physical function, weight gain, nutritional status, or wound healing. In addition, Finucane et al. (1999, 1995) notes that tube feeding has no effect on malnutrition or wasting syndrome in chronically ill patients. They also find that tube feeding does not assist in healing pressure ulcers. Identifying the EOL Patient Evaluation of the EOL patient differs from one who is expected to make a reasonable degree of recovery in that the SLP needs to spend additional time communicating with the health care team. The team must come to a consensus concerning the patient’s medical prognosis in order to develop a plan of care that is consistent across all disciplines. This allows the team to “speak with one voice” when discussing sensitive information with the patient and family, therefore minimizing confusion regarding the plan of care. The swallow evaluation includes a bedside evaluation and, as needed, a modified barium swallow study. The evaluation also includes a review of the patient’s current and premorbid levels of function, medical status, nutrition and hydration status, and patient/family wishes. Once this information is gathered, the SLP needs to weigh the swallow prognosis and nutrition/hydration options with the patient’s medical prognosis. We need to ask, “How close is this patient to end of life?” The answer is not always simple or clear cut. Brown’s End-of-Life Decision Tool helps to visualize this process by weighing patients’ premorbid level of function against their medical status. For example, if a patient with a high premorbid level of function suffers an acute event and is medically stable, the patient has a reasonably good prognosis and will likely benefit from intervention. Conversely, if a patient with a low premorbid level of function suffers an acute event and is medically unstable or critically ill, the patient may be nearing the EOL and may not benefit from aggressive intervention. If a patient with a compromised premorbid medical and functional status suffers an acute event, the patient’s ability to benefit from intervention may be unclear. A trial treatment period is helpful to determine whether treatment will be beneficial and if recovery is possible. Developing a Dynamic Treatment Plan The goal of the treatment planning session is to assist the patient and family in making informed decisions. Each patient and family will weigh quality of life and potential benefits and burdens differently. What may be burdensome to one patient may not be to another. For example, the patient may wish to receive AHN to be present for an anticipated birth or an important anniversary. Conversely, another patient may see AHN as a prolongation of suffering. Groher (1990) and Sharp and Genesen (1996) recommend reviewing all risks and benefits when weighing feeding options. During the patient and family treatment planning session, Groher suggests that the SLP clarify if the patient and family view AHN as a part of routine or mandatory care. He also suggests that the health care team discuss with the patient and family whether the provision of AHN to those with terminal diseases “causes the patient to continue to suffer by allowing him or her to survive longer than if the feeding was withheld.” Sharp and Genesen suggest that the health care team discuss four areas when devising a treatment plan with the patient and family: medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features. Medical indications encompass the medical history, prognosis, and the futility of continued treatment. Patient preferences include a discussion of the patient’s values (this should cover review of a Living Will or a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, religious beliefs, and goals of treatment). Quality of life encompasses concepts such as the influence of psychosocial, cognitive, religious, or other spiritual influences. Contextual features include social factors, cultural differences, financial issues, legal considerations, institutional policies, family preferences, and the burdens of care upon the care providers. Once the above factors are discussed, the patient and family will work with the SLP and others on the health care team to decide upon the feeding or non-feeding options. These options include eating and drinking orally (with feeding assistance), tube feeding, a combination of the two, or withholding or withdrawing hydration and nutrition. Other considerations may include total parenteral nutrition or a pre-determined timed-trial (e.g., a specific number of days/weeks) for tube feedings or oral diets. The plan must place primary emphasis on the patient’s wishes regardless of potential outcome. For example, if the patient chooses to risk aspiration by taking small sips of thin liquids, the patient should be supported in the decision. The health care team should be available to the patient and family to answer questions and to provide support as the plan is instituted. Documentation Documentation is critical. It should be an accurate, chronological, concise, legal record of the medical diagnosis and prognosis, risks and benefits of specific options, and patient and family wishes and their decisions. Information regarding statements from a Living Will or a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care should be included in the documentation. It is also helpful to document patient and family statements and refer to physician documentation of “do not resuscitate,” “no code,” or “no tubes.” Specific orders may also be written, such as, “Per patient wishes, the patient is allowed to take an oral diet.” Some medical facilities may require an Informed Consent. Education and Treatment Treatment for dysphagia patients at EOL requires special emphasis on education and training to give families the confidence to provide comfort care. The health team should know their state’s laws regarding end of life care and provide full information to the patient/family regarding options, including hospice. Treatment is typically short-term and focuses on maximizing safety by teaching the patient/family compensatory swallow strategies, how to prepare modified food/liquid consistencies, and monitor for aspiration symptoms. As the patient’s status changes, families are taught to minimize risks by adjusting compensatory strategies and diet textures. End of life issues and concerns are difficult to talk about. Providing a supportive environment where patient and family concerns and traditions are acknowledged and respected is essential. They should be given time to weigh options and ask questions. If presented with a complex case involving conflicts of opinion, a referral should be made to the appropriate ombudsman or hospital ethics committee. SLPs provide valuable assistance to the patient nearing end of life. As part of the health care team, the SLP plays a vital role in helping the patient achieve a dignified death. Brown’s Tool [PDF] AHN Burdens and Benefits Potential AHN Burdens Nausea, regurgitation, vomiting Respiratory congestion Diarrhea Esophageal perforation Infection Aspiration of tube feeding Local wound infections and painful insertion sites Agitated behavior in individuals with cognitive impairments AHN May Benefit Patients In recovering from an acute event, such as a stroke With some types of gastrointestinal cancers During chemotherapy or radiation therapy when requiring supplemental nutrition With esophageal obstructions With neurologic dysphagia without obstruction Who refuse to swallow without evidence of terminal illness Managing Dysphagia in the Adult Approaching End of Life Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center; Burbank, California Alyssa Levy, MS, CCC-SLP; Linda Dominguez-Gasson, MCD, CCC-SLP; Elizabeth Brown, MA, CCC-SLP; and Cara Frederick, MS, CCC-SLP References and Resources American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. (2001). Statement of the Use of Nutrition and Hydration: Position Statement.: Glenview, IL: Author. Google Scholar Angus F. & Burakoff R. (2003). The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: Medical and ethical issues in placement.American Journal of Gastroenterology,( 98(2), 272–277. Google Scholar Callahan C.M., Haag K.M., & Weinberger M. (2000). Outcome of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting.Journal of the American Geriatric Society,( 48(9), 1048–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Callahan D. (1993). On feeding the dying.The Hastings Center Report,. 22. Google Scholar Croghan J.E., Burke E.M., Caplan S., & Denman S. (1994). Pilot study of 12-month outcomes of outcomes of nursing home patients with aspiration on videofluoroscopy.Dysphagia,( 9(3), 141–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Daly B.J. (2000). Special challenges of withholding artificial nutrition and hydration.Journal of Gerontological Nursing,( 26(9), 25–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Daly B.J., Weintraub F.N., Shou J., Rosato E.F., & Lucia M. (1995). Enteral nutrition during multimodality therapy in upper-gastrointestinal cancer patients.Annals of Surgery,( 1221(4), 327–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Hoefler J.M. (2000). Making decisions about tube feeding for severely demented patients at the end of life: Clinical, legal, and ethical considerations. Death Studies,– 24,233–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Fiatarone M.A., O’Neill E.F., Doyle Ryan N., Clements K.M., & Solares G.R. (1994). Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people.New England Journal of Medicine, 330(25), 1769–1775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Finucane T.E. (1995). Malnutrition, tube feeding and pressure sores: Data are incomplete.Journal of the American Gerontological Society, 43, 447–451. Google Scholar Finucane T.E., Christmas C., & Travis K. (1999). Tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia: A review of the evidence.American Medical Association,( 282(14), 1365–1370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Groher M.E. (1990). Ethical dilemmas in providing nutrition.Dysphagia, 5(2), 102–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Jakonen S. (1997). Dehydration and hydration in the terminally ill: Care considerations.Nursing Forum,, 32, 5–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar McCann R.M., Hall W.J., & Groth-Junker A. (1994). Comfort care for terminally ill patients: The appropriate use of nutrition and hydration.Journal of the American Medical Association,( 272(16), 1263–1266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Mitchell S.L., Tetroe J., & O’Connor A.M. (2001). A decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older persons.Journal of American Geriatrics Society,( 49(3), 313–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Mitchell S.L., Kiely D.K, & Lipsitz L.A. (1998). Does artificial enteral nutrition prolong the survival of institutionalized elders with chewing and swallowing problems.Journal of Gerontology, Medical Sciences,( 53(3), M207–M213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Mitchell S.L., Kiely D.K, & Lipsitz L.A. (1997). The risk factors and impact on survival of feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with severe cognitive impairment.Archives of Internal Medicine,( 157(3), 327–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Post S.G. (2001). Tube feeding and advanced progressive dementia.Hastings Center Report,( 31(1), 36–42. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Printz L.A. (1988). Is withholding hydration a valid comfort measure in the terminally ill?.Geriatrics,( 43(11), 84–88. Google Scholar Printz L.A. (1992). Terminal dehydration: To give or not to give intravenous fluids.Cancer Nursing,, 152, 697–700. Google Scholar Rabeneck L., McCullough L. B., & Wray N. P. (1997). Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet,( 349(9050), 496–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Sanders D. S., Carter M. J., D’Silva J., James R.P., & Bolton R.P. (2000). Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: A worse outcome in patients with dementia.The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 95(6), 1472–1475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Schmitz P. (1991). The process of dying with and without feeding and fluids by tube.Law, Medicine, & Health Care,( 19(1–2), 23–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Schwartz D. B. & Dominguez-Gasson L. J. (1997). Aspiration in a patient receiving enteral nutrition.Nutrition in Clinical Practice,( 12(1), 14–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Sharp H.M. & Genesen L.B. (1996). Ethical decision-making in dysphagia management.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 15–22. LinkGoogle Scholar Slomka J. (2003). Withholding nutrition at the end of life: Clinical and ethical issues.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,( 70(6), 548–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Smith S.A. & Andrews M. (2000). Artificial nutrition and hydration at the end of life.MEDSURG Nursing,( 9(5), 233–247. Google Scholar Sullivan R.J. (1993). Accepting death without artificial nutrition or hydration.Journal of General Internal Medicine,( 8(4), 220–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Zerwekh J.V. (1997). Do dying patients really need IV fluids?.American Journal of Nursing,( 97(3), 26–30. Google Scholar Zerwekh J.V. (1983). The dehydration question.Nursing( 83(1), 47–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author Notes Alyssa Levy, speech-language pathologist, is a member of the Department of Speech-Language Pathology at The Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, CA. Linda Dominguez-Gasson, manager of Speech-Language Pathology, is a member of the Department of Speech-Language Pathology at The Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, CA. Elizabeth Brown, speech-language pathologist, is a member of the Department of Speech-Language Pathology at The Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, CA. Cara Frederick, speech-language pathologist, is a member of the Department of Speech-Language Pathology at The Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, CA. Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups6:3 (649-653)25 Jun 2021Facilitating End-of-Life Interaction Between Patients With Severe Communication Impairment and Their FamiliesAdithya Chandregowda, Julie A. G. Stierwalt and Heather M. Clark Volume 9Issue 13July 2004 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jul 1, 2004 Metrics Downloaded 10,463 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2004 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...