There appears to be an association between poor oral hygiene and increased risk of aspiration pneumoniaa leading cause of mortality post-stroke. We aim to synthesise what is known about oral care after stroke, identify knowledge gaps and outline priorities for research that will provide evidence to inform best practice. Methods: A narrative review from a multidisciplinary perspective, drawing on evidence from systematic reviews, literature, expert and lay opinion to scrutinise current practice in oral care after a stroke and seek consensus on research priorities. Findings: Oral care tends to be of poor quality and delegated to the least qualified members of the caring team. Nursing staff often work in a pressured environment where other aspects of clinical care take priority. Guidelines that exist are based on weak evidence and lack detail about how best to provide oral care. Discussion: Oral health after a stroke is important from a social as well as physical health perspective, yet tends to be neglected. Multidisciplinary research is needed to improve understanding of the complexities associated with delivering good oral care for stroke patients. Also to provide the evidence for practice that will improve wellbeing and may reduce risk of aspiration pneumonia and other serious sequelae. Conclusion: Although there is evidence of an association, there is only weak evidence about whether improving oral care reduces risk of pneumonia or mortality after a stroke. Clinically relevant, feasible, cost-effective, evidence-based oral care interventions to improve patient outcomes in stroke care are urgently needed.

Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.

Background Dysphagia is associated with aspiration pneumonia after stroke. Data are limited on the influences of dysphagia screen and assessment in clinical practice. Aims To determine associations between a “brief” screen and “detailed” assessment of dysphagia on clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients. Methods A prospective cohort study analyzed retrospectively using data from a multicenter, cluster cross-over, randomized controlled trial (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial [HeadPoST]) from 114 hospitals in nine countries. HeadPoST included 11,093 acute stroke patients randomized to lying-flat or sitting-up head positioning. Herein, we report predefined secondary analyses of the association of dysphagia screening and assessment and clinical outcomes of pneumonia and death or disability (modified Rankin scale 3–6) at 90 days. Results Overall, 8784 (79.2%) and 3917 (35.3%) patients were screened and assessed for dysphagia, respectively, but the frequency and timing for each varied widely across regions. Neither use of a screen nor an assessment for dysphagia was associated with the outcomes, but their results were compared to “screen-pass” patients, those who failed had higher risks of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18–4.10) and death or disability (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.41–1.95). Similar results were evidence for the results of an assessment for dysphagia. Subsequent feeding restrictions were related to higher risk of pneumonia in patients failed dysphagia screen or assessment (aOR = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.72–9.54). Conclusions Failing a dysphagia screen is associated with increased risks of pneumonia and poor clinical outcome after acute stroke. Further studies concentrate on determining the effective subsequent feeding actions are needed to improve patient outcomes.

Objective: To describe the bacterial profile of the oral flora during the first 2 weeks following a stroke, examining changes in the condition of the oral cavity and infections.Background: Dysphagia is common after a stroke and can lead to aspiration pneumo-

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are expected to make evidence-based recommendations, thus guiding practice and reducing unwarranted variation. CPGs are particularly helpful in guiding complex procedures such as the Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Study (VFSS) for the assessment of dysphagia, but there is a suspected high level of variability among them. To explore the extent of this variation, this study aimed to systematically identify and appraise all VFSS CPGs available worldwide. Methods: A systematic search of 3 academic databases and other sources was conducted to identify relevant CPGs; independent reviews of each CPG were undertaken by a Speech and Language Therapist and a Radiographer. Both reviewers completed a predetermined checklist of expected professional content for each CPG. CPGs were then assessed for quality using the Appraisal of Guidance for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Findings from the professional content review and the methodological quality review were synthesised to inform an assessment of suitability of each CPG to inform clinical practice. Results: Seven VFSS CPGs were identified worldwide, none of which were co-designed by radiographers or aimed at a radiographer audience. Each differs in their professional content, recommendations, underpinning evidence base and professional focus. Average AGREE ll scores across the quality domains vary considerably, ranging from 93-22%. No CPGs scored highly on all six AGREE II domains. Conclusion: There is no standardisation between VFSS guidelines. Six CPGs are not recommended for clinical use; only one of the seven identified CPGs is recommended for use following significant modification. Implications for practice: The lack of a comprehensive, evidence-based guideline encourages unwarranted variation in clinical practice which potentially compromises clinical care. Further research is needed to define VFSS best practice.