JCPSLP Vol 22 No 2 2020

Table 2. Mean scores from audits using the three devices

Total number audited

Mean score LST (in cm)

Mean score Flow Test (in mls)

Mean score Bostwick (in cm)

17.09 (SD = 1.3, Range = 14–19.5) Prescribed acceptable norm range: 12–18, mean 15 10 (SD = 1.17, Range 7–11.5) Prescribed acceptable norm range: 10–12, mean 11 4.9 (SD = 1.07, Range = 3–6.25) Prescribed acceptable norm range: 5–7, mean 6

7.7 (SD = 1.12, Range = 5–9.4) Prescribed acceptable norm range: Between 4–8mls remaining in the syringe 9.8 (SD = 0.19, Range 9.2–10) Prescribed acceptable norm range: More than 8mls remaining in the syringe, but some liquid still flows through the syringe 10 (SD = 0, Range = 10–10) Prescribed acceptable norm range: No liquid flows at all through the syringe

Mildly thick

37

4.2 (SD = 0.39, Range 3.49–5.22)

Prescribed acceptable norm range: 3.9–5.0, mean 4.2

Moderately thick 22

2.9 (SD = 0.31, Range 2.04-3.35)

Prescribed acceptable norm range: 2.9–3.89, mean 3.2

Extremely thick

18

1.8 (SD = 0.36, Range = 0.99– 2.31)

Prescribed acceptable norm range: 1.5–2.89, mean 2.2

Table 3- Non-compliant audit results

Audit method

Bostick LST Flow

Bostick LST Flow

Bostick LST Flow

MILDLY thick

MODERATELY thick

EXTREMELY thick

4

6

8

18

12

0

11

5

0

Non- compliant by consistency

Too thin

Total

4

2

0 Total

0

0

0 Total

0

0

0

Old

3

0

– Old

-

-

– Old

–

-

–

New

1

2

– New

-

-

– New

–

-

–

Room

2

1

– Room

-

-

– Room

–

-

–

Cold

2

1

– Cold

-

-

– Cold

–

-

–

Too thick

Total

0

4

8 Total

18

12

0 Total

11

5

0

Old

–

2

1 Old

18

8

– Old

11

5

–

New

–

2

7 New

0

4

– New

0

0

–

Room –

0

2 Room

7

7

– Room

4

2

–

Cold

–

4

6 Cold

11

5

– Cold

7

3

–

different flavour categories at both fridge and room temperature. Line Spread Test Of the 62 samples audited using the LST, a total of 3% (n = 2) were excluded due to missing audit information; therefore a total of 60 samples were subject to analysis. A total of 62% (n = 37) were within acceptable norms for the line spread test. Of those that failed (n = 23), 91% (n = 21) were considered too thick and 9% (n = 2) were considered too thin. Of the samples that failed because they were too thin (9%, n = 2), both samples were mildly thick fluids, from two different flavour categories at both fridge and room

Flow Test. Of those that failed (13%, n = 8), all were considered too thick. Of the total that failed, 100% were mildly thick fluids and were from both room and fridge temperature. Non-compliant samples are outlined in Table 3 with compliance of thickened fluids across the three low technology methods illustrated in Figure 1. Agreement between the three auditing methods When the same sample could be compared across each of the three audit methods (n = 41) with the supplier phasing out old stock and introducing new stock on 37% of occasions (n = 15), there was complete agreement between the three auditing methods that the thickened fluid samples were compliant with viscosity norms. On 5% of occasions (n = 2) there was agreement between two auditing methods as to compliance. There was no agreement between all three auditing methods (the

temperature. Flow Test

Of the 62 samples audited using the Flow Test, a total of 3% (n = 2) were excluded due to missing audit information; therefore a total of 60 samples were subject to analysis. Of these 87% (n = 52) were within acceptable norms for the

118

JCPSLP Volume 22, Number 2 2020

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology