Problem-Solving with Catherine: Repeat Swallow Studies Post-NICU Discharge

 

QUESTION: What is the typical time for follow-up VFSS for discharged NICU baby who is on thickened feedings? Our team has been recommending 6 to 8 weeks following VFSS. We are finding that there is some improvement at 6 weeks but not enough to change formula thickness.

CATHERINE’S ANSWER:

Because I find every infant is unique, we don’t utilize an arbitrary time frame, but instead determine that with the gestalt of each patient, and then discuss with the team.

Considerations I use include: infant’s history and co-occurring comorbidities, etiology(ies), nature of pathophysiology, how precarious swallowing appears even with thickening, complexity of interventions required to establish safe swallow, anticipated compliance with interventions post-discharge.

For example, a former 24 weeker with slowly resolving CLD, discharged on oxygen with laryngomalacia with the same swallowing pathophysiology as an infant born at 37 weeks IDM would most likely have a repeat VFSS earlier and have post-discharge surveillance more frequently. Ideally, we want to allow enough time for resolution of the etiology or the factors that underpin the swallowing pathophysiology, but not too much time —so that too must be tempered with risk-benefit of prolonged thickening, radiation exposure and how safety may change overtime, both for the better or the worse, depending on the infant and the bigger picture. It’s the art and science of what we do.

In re-assessing potential changes in swallowing physiology in the repeat VFSS, we may not be able to wean thickening based on new data. The data we gather will hopefully better guide interventions that would be occurring aside from thickening, and allow us to objectify potential new interventions and their impact. Re-objectifying physiology in a VFSS allows us to gather objective data on the impact of weaning thickener on physiology itself,  avoiding a narrow focus on only aspiration. It should help optimize the risk-benefit ratio inherent in our clinical decision-making, especially for our most fragile feeders.

Rather than having an arbitrary time frame, consider recommendations that are patient specific based on the domains above. As I always like to say, “in the NICU, co-morbidities matter”.  That applies to this question as well. So perhaps collect data for the team that may yield “co-morbidity-based” time frames that could be your soft “guidelines” — with the understanding that the final recommendation will be infant-specific.  Again, it’s the art and science of what we do and part of the value we bring to the NICU team.

If I were to average the data over many years of practice, I suspect the repeat studies post-discharge from the NICU tend to be between 6-8 weeks post discharge. I hope this provides some food for thought.

Happy Thanksgiving 2024 from Catherine Shaker

                                                                                  This Thanksgiving, I want to share my gratitude for the opportunity to connect with you and share our common passion…safe and successful feeding.

Supporting the feeding relationship for infants, children, and their families is at the heart of what we do, and I’m thankful for the chance to be part of your journey

  

May your holiday season be filled with joy, love, and moments that matter most.

Catherine Shaker Seminars: Wrapping Up 2024 Texas Style!

During 2024, I traveled from the heartland to Texas and to the East and West  coasts, and met (and re-connected with !)  some amazing people along the way. From past attendees who once again joined me in Sacramento, to the dedicated team at Wake Med Medical Center, to the amazing NICU nurses who learned along with STs/ OTs/PTs at my NICU seminar in Texas, to the staff and children at Morristown Medical Center, and the dynamic team at Community Health in Indy. From all coasts and around the world (Canada, Dubai, Spain, Japan, the UK) therapists joined us to share our common passion for neonatal/pediatric feeding and swallowing. So many remarked about the gift of being in the same room, networking and enjoying higher-level conversations with each other and the group. From deep dives across multiple components of assessment and intervention, to practical solutions and case problem-solving, to considering the impact of the current research on our practice and navigating the practice challenges each of us faces on a daily basis. We each left feeling renewed.

I am finalizing next year’s schedule, which will take me across the US….. to Columbus OH, Dallas, Houston and California.

Sign up for my blog on my website to receive a notification when my 2025 Seminar schedule is posted.

I continue to be grateful for each of you who shares my passion for neonatal/pediatric swallowing and feeding, and lifelong learning. I hope our paths cross in 2025!

Catherine

 

Some of my favorite comments over the years:

“I have been waiting for an advanced course where we could all interact and learn from each other. I finally found it. I might even come again next year and participate with a different group. Such great problem-solving about so many different types of pediatric patients. Thank you! Veronica, SLP

 “Thanks for being such a spark to help me keep learning! I learned more in two hours than I did in four days at a different conference. Thanks too for your willingness to both objectively discuss and answer questions about things with which you both agree with and disagree.” Emma, SLP

 “I came away with so many strategies and a better understanding of what to look for when working with a child. Really helped me look at the whole picture”. Priscilla, OTR

 “Your course is a huge bang for my buck! Honestly invaluable. Your real-life experiences helped apply the research and knowledge you shared. And for referencing so many other excellent professionals working in the field. Really filled in the blanks for me”. Kerry, SLP

“Even for someone like me who doesn’t do VFSS, I learned so much about the biomechanics of the pediatric swallow that now can inform my treatment”. Leana, SLP

 

Problem-Solving with Catherine: Clinical Weaning 3 y/o with Down Syndrome

Question: Looking for input on weaning thickener for 3 y/o with down syndrome. Attempted the systematic weaning protocol, but patient did not tolerate past 20% decrease. Patient previously used Vital Stim with minimal results, but I’m unclear on how long it was utilized. Any courses or articles people can point me to help? Thanks in advance. I feel like I keep taking courses and reading things, but there’s just so much to know and keep up with. It’s kind of overwhelming.

Catherine’s Answer: The clinical weaning program for our patients with Down Syndrome will require the use of objective data via VFSS regarding the impact of the change on physiology and airway protection. The literature, much of it recent, is worrisome for silent aspiration due to pathophysiology, likely related to altered sensory and motor components for swallowing. Weaning without the benefit of objective data about the impact could inadvertently adversely affect airway protection for some children. Boston Children’s did a study showing that our clinical impressions about airway invasion risk are often not reliable. That means we must carefully weigh the risk-benefit ratio of clinical weaning for each patient. No intervention is for all patients. It is only as good as the skill of the clinician to problem solve its appropriateness given the big picture.

Follow-up question from therapist: What would you recommend for patients that would like to work on weaning as a VFSS is not typically available in most settings? I’m trying to be explore as many options as possible to provide support to parents. It’s possible they may not be able to be weaned, but I want to make sure I’ve got explored all options to support this family.

Catherine’s follow-up answer: Can you tell me more about history and co-morbidities, and the impressions about swallowing pathophysiology from the most recent VFSS, what level of thickening is he on, by what utensil, is that what was originally objectified on the most recent VFSS (or is there no objective data for that thickening with that utensil?) , respiratory history and interval hospitalizations, what you are seeing clinically? I know that’s a lot of questions but without that info it’s like pulling something out of the air – not useful. Each piece of data has meaning to me as I problem-solve and do a mini-differential (with the caveat that I don’t really know the child and have not laid eyes/hands on the child). The risk is much higher without objective data from a VFSS…knowing more about the bigger picture will help me consider the potential risks to pulmonary health for this child. Even if the VFSS isn’t available in the setting in which you work, such as EI, working through logistics to obtain objective data about the impact on swallowing physiology through a VFSS will always support a more protective plan, especially in the setting of DS. If I were not practicing in acute care, but were in EI, with what I know about the patient so far, and have read in the literature, I’d be wanting objective data from a VFSS. Recent papers have stated that “the treatment should be based on data acquired from an instrumental assessment…”. That causes us to take pause, given that if there are unintended consequences to your plan of care, an expert witness may cite these papers. Careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of proceeding without objective data is the treating clinician’s judgement. As a former expert witness, I always to try in my clinical practice to minimize my risks as a professional, knowing that litigation can sometimes come from unintended sources and families in grief. Please don’t take these comments as criticizing your practice — they are not meant to at all, but rather to add another voice of experience that might help someone out there. Your post clearly supports your critical thinking, and your little patient is fortunate to have you supporting the family and safety.

Addendum: Selected References

Velayutham, Priatharisiny, Alexandria L. Irace, Kosuke Kawai, Pamela Dodrill, Jennifer Perez, Monica Londahl, Lauren Mundy, Natasha D. Dombrowski, and Reza Rahbar. “Silent aspiration: who is at risk?” The Laryngoscope 128, no. 8 (2018): 1952-1957.

Weir, K., McMahon, S., Barry, L., Ware, R., Masters, I. B., & Chang, A. B. (2007). Oropharyngeal aspiration and pneumonia in children. Pediatric pulmonology, 42(11), 1024-1031.

Hendrix, J. A., Amon, A., Abbeduto, L., Agiovlasitis, S., Alsaied, T., Anderson, H. A., … & Yi, J. S. (2021). Opportunities, barriers, and recommendations in Down syndrome research. Translational science of rare diseases, 5(3-4), 99-129

Tutor, J. D. (2020). Dysphagia and chronic pulmonary aspiration in children. Pediatrics in Review, 41(5), 236-244.

Bush, D., Galambos, C., & Dunbar Ivy, D. (2021). Pulmonary hypertension in children with Down syndrome. Pediatric pulmonology, 56(3), 621-629.

Brumbaugh, D. E., & Accurso, F. J. (2002). Persistent silent aspiration in a child with Trisomy 21. Current opinion in pediatrics, 14(2), 231-233.

Stanley, M. A., Shepherd, N., Duvall, N., Jenkinson, S. B., Jalou, H. E., Givan, D. C., … & Roper, R. J. (2019). Clinical identification of feeding and swallowing disorders in 0–6 month old infants with Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 179(2), 177-182.

Nordstrøm, M., Retterstøl, K., Hope, S., & Kolset, S. O. (2020). Nutritional challenges in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(6), 455-464.

Problem-Solving with Catherine: NICU VFSS and Indwelling NGT

Question: I have been searching through your publications and have not been able to find this answer and I am curious if you could help me. I have been getting questions regarding our swallow study process and the validity of a swallow study when a baby has an NGT. Our physicians are questioning if we need to complete a swallow study with and without an NGT. Is this necessary? Thank you for your support and all the great work you do!”
Catherine’s Answer:
I think the key considerations would include:
  • Having the feeding “environment” for the VFSS the same as the typical feeding environment or you add an artifact to the data set. So if there is an indwelling NGT, that is the typical feeding environment for that infant. If the NGT is to be removed in a few days and “no NGT in situ” will be the typical feeding environment, then that would be a reason to objectify physiology without the NGT in situ. But that would be an unlikely plan if we are going to radiology.
  • Observing under both conditions increases radiation exposure which we know the AAP advises against unless we expect new data
  • Recognizing that most preterms are PO feeding with an NGT in situ for a period and they still progress to full PO. It in and of itself does not appear to be a variable adversely affecting progression. It’s not typically the indwelling NG tube that is the problem, it’s the impact of the infant’s unique comorbidities (based on research about co-morbidities) affecting the swallow-breathe interface.
  • We have no data that I am aware of in an RCT regarding this question specific to the NICU. The only citations I know of are below. Edwards et al (7 DOL to 13 years) does not even look at the etiology for the aspiration events so we cannot conclude that the NGT being in situ was “causal” — only that it was a “co-occurring” variable in this cohort. I think the conclusions are not warranted. The distinction between what is “causal” and what is “co-occurring” is rooted deeply in medicine — and should be with our differentials as well.
  • My clinical wisdom over almost 40 years in Level III and level IV NICUs suggests as a guideline we leave the NGT in during the VFSS. The pathophysiology witnessed has never appeared to me to be related to the effect of the NGT but rather to other factors, often related to infant’s unique history and comorbidities.

Relevant references~

  • Alnassar, M., Oudjhane, K., & Davila, J. (2011). Nasogastric tubes and videofluoroscopic swallowing studies in children. Pediatric radiology, 41, 317-321. Quoted Summary: The presence of a nasogastric tube does not alter the findings of VFSS; however, it might increase the incidence of respiratory compromise when aspiration is present.
  • Edwards, S. T., Ernst, L., Sherman, A. K., & Davis, A. M. (2020). Increased episodes of aspiration on videofluoroscopic swallow study in children with nasogastric tube placement. Plos one, 1   Quoted Results: Sixty-three children with NG tubes were identified, along with 63 age and sex matched children without NG tubes in place, at the time of VFSS. Ages ranged from 7 days to 13 years. The NG group had a significantly higher proportion demonstrating aspiration (46% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.0089). Quoted Conclusions: This study supports the need for further prospective evaluation of NG tubes and their effect on swallow, as well as more careful consideration of prolonged NG tube placement in patients with feeding problems. Consideration should be given to removal of the NG prior to VFSS to prevent the impact of NG placement on results of the swallow study which could lead to inappropriate modifications to the patient’s care plan.

Catherine’s Research Corner: Oral feeding dysfunction in post-operative infants with CHD

 

In our neonatal/pediatric population, often the need for TEE (Trans Esophageal ECHO),  a the surgical procedure that  involved the aortic arch, and/or both intra-operative and post-operative events —in the setting of the inherent neurodevelopmental risks for the CHD population — all raise our index of suspicion when we are re-consulted post-op.

I have been meaning to post this article by the team at CHOP for my peds colleagues who follow our infants/children with CHD. It suggests the most common risk factors associated with poor feeding for infants with Congenital Heart Disease at time of discharge were: birth weight (36% of included studies), gestational age (44%), duration of post-operative intubation (48%), cardiac diagnosis (40%), and presence of genetic syndrome or chromosomal anomaly (36%).

Jacobwitz M, Dean Durning J,Moriarty H, James R, Irving SY, Licht DJ, and Yost J (2023) Oral feeding dysfunction in post-operative infants with CHDs: a scoping review.Cardiology in the Young 33: 570–578.doi: 10.1017/S1047951122001299 (available on Google Scholar)

While pre-operatively the presence of complex co-morbidities portends for more worrisome post-op feeding challenges, in this population the well-intentioned “push” to PO feed or the “push” to return to PO feeding post-op in a regimented way, often sets the stage for volume-driven stressful feeding experiences (for infants and children alike). That can then often provoke the onset of feeding refusals and indeed aversions, and further exacerbate baseline risk for enduring feeding problems. Our partnership with the PCVICU team, including families, is so important to optimize feeding outcomes in this at risk population and support joy in feeding for a lifetime.

I hope this informs your practice as it did mine.

Catherine’s Research Corner: Facilitating Pediatric Patients During Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies

The VFSS (videofluoroscopic swallowing study) requires a high level of clinical reasoning and critical thinking. Pediatric therapists  utilizing best practice during videofluoroscopic swallow studies recognize that reading the  x-ray images in-and-of-itself is insufficient for completing a differential, generating an impression and prescribing a plan of intervention. Multiple considerations are essential, including interpreting the radiographic data in the setting of that child’s unique history, comorbidities and and clinical presentation. Building on their previous publication Smith & Barkmeier-Kraemer, 2022, there are logistical considerations that the authors delineate to optimize clinical yield and plan of care.

Citation:

Smith, L. S., Brinker, K., Jones, C. E., Ray, M. H., Taylor, H. M., Gardiner, R. T., & Sauer, T. M. (2024). Facilitating Pediatric Patients During Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 9(4), 1119-1133.

 

Quoted from the Abstract:

Results/Conclusion:

Facilitative techniques during pediatric VFSS benefit the obtaining of accurate diagnostic results to guide pediatric feeding disorder management and recommendations.

The pediatric videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) is an imaging procedure that captures moving X-rays while infants or children swallow liquids or solids containing barium. The process allows evaluation of oral, pharyngeal, and upper esophageal function. The purpose of the study is to define swallowing function with the intent of designing appropriate care plans for patients with disordered swallowing, also known as dysphagia. The management of swallowing problems can be complex, as dysphagia exists within the larger context of pediatric feeding disorder (PFD; Goday et al., 2019). An accurate instrumental assessment of dysphagia through VFSS is a critical diagnostic study for many pediatric patients with PFD, and therefore crucial to the formulation of individualized and appropriate treatment plans.

Conducting a pediatric VFSS in a manner that accurately reveals swallowing pathophysiology can be challenging due to a variety of factors present in testing situations with infants and children. Arvedson and Lefton-Greif (1998) provide detailed information regarding the conducting of VFSS in their manual: Pediatric Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies: A Professional Manual With Caregiver Guidelines. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Practice Portal provides guidance on conducting comprehensive assessment of feeding and swallowing disorders, including instrumental evaluations. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are instructed to conduct assessments in a “sensitive and responsive manner” (ASHA, n.d.), which implies support of the caregiver and patient throughout the evaluation process.

SLPs may facilitate inpatient and outpatient children ages birth through 18 years in multiple ways to increase the likelihood of obtaining an accurate and representative sample of swallowing during VFSS. Clinical efforts have revealed effective techniques for use during pediatric VFSS, to achieve studies of higher diagnostic value. These techniques are offered herein as applicable with various pediatric patients, dependent on SLP judgment. The Pediatric Videofluoroscopic Value Scale (pVFSS), a novel tool used to summarize a clinician’s level of trust in VFSS results, includes five categories (Smith & Barkmeier-Kraemer, 2022). Facilitative techniques for each of the five categories, namely, feeding engagement, crying, volume consumed, bolus size, and method, are discussed in this clinical focus article.

Shaker Seminars in Raleigh: Sharing a Common Passion and the Latest Evidence

I just returned from a  wonderful week of teaching in Raleigh at Wake Med.

Here I am with Juliet, Lesli and Lindsay, who are part of the Wake Med SLP team~

Pediatric and neonatal therapists from across the US joined me to network, take deep dives into the evidence, reconsider and reframe fundamentals, share clinical experiences and key learnings, and problem-solve both hot topics and complex patients. We all left feeling renewed and knowing that we are all in this together.

It is such a gift to have the opportunity of in-person engagement that generates new friendships and colleagues that will last a lifetime. I am so looking forward to heading to NJ in September.

Catherine Shaker 2024 Seminars: Look Through a New Lens

 

“The real voyage of discovery consists not only in seeking new landscapes but also in looking through a new lens.”
Join Catherine in 2024 for advanced clinical learning opportunities in Indy, Raleigh, Morristown NJ, and the Dallas area ….
  • Advanced Infant/Pediatric Dysphagia: Problem-Solving Complex Patients and Practice Issues
  • NICU Swallowing and Feeding: In the Nursery and After Discharge in EI
  • Pediatric Swallowing and Feeding: The Essentials
  • Pediatric Video Swallow Studies: From Physiology to Analysis

An interactive welcoming learning environment……with multiple planned times for dialogue and questions, problem-solving your patients, sharing our collective wisdom, discussing the evidence-based research…and our shared clinical challenges.

Our discussions will include critical thinking for all our patients, no matter the age. It’s not just learning “what to do” clinically but thoughtfully considering what not to do and why.      Because every feeding experience matters………

Click here for Catherine Shaker Seminars 2024 Brochure
Click here for Site/Location Info

Problem-Solving with Catherine: Intubated Infants and Milk Drops

 

Premature baby 'size of a palm' home after 400 days in KKH, parents learn to rise above heartache - TODAY

Question: Our health care system is looking at the pros/cons of administering maternal breast milk swabs vs drops via syringe to early preemies and other infants who are intubated. I am aware that the use of syringe is recommended for initial colostrum, but I question if this is a safe practice beyond that phase. Our feeding educators and micro-preemie champions feel that best practice is to administer swabs vs syringe, which is difficult to control. I would appreciate your thoughts and references on this matter.

 

Catherine’s Answer: The benefits of EBM from the first moments of extrauterine life have been well-documented. That said, some of the applications of this concept are somewhat worrisome and need to be grounded by our understanding of swallowing physiology, its emergence in the setting of prematurity, the impact of an ETT and the co-morbidities that co-occur for preterms and sick newborns who require neonatal intensive care. I have seen commentary from a therapist on social media saying, ” We start as young as 24 weeks. 0.2 mL”    While we know the fetus at 24 weeks of life is swallowing amniotic fluid for motor learning in the intrauterine environment, the extrauterine environment cannot provide the same underpinnings when a caregiver delivers fluid, even with the best of developmentally supportive infant-guided care. 

The complex and precarious nature of the swallow-breathe interface in these fragile infants is not always fully understood, so the need to pause and fully consider the risk-benefit ratio for such an intervention at that particular time in the infant’s recovery may not be fully appreciated. If there is an ETT in situ, then it may act, as our ENTs say, as a potential conduit for the milk drops (and EER/LPR for example) to invade the airway, silently or symptomatically. I would suspect that syringe delivery of a bolus would pose a greater risk, but no one to my knowledge has studied that question.

That does not mean pacifier dips or milk drops aren’t a valuable intervention, but timing and readiness are key considerations for any intervention available to us. I use it often in the NICU to promote both neuroprotection, motor learning for swallowing (often truncated by limited intrauterine learning secondary to preterm birth) and underpinnings for future PO attempts (so incorporate organized root-to-latch sequence, resting, and co-regulated pacing). Even for sick newborns with co-morbidities that predispose then to feeding/swallowing problems, this has clinically appeared to be quite helpful for the infant and as a learning process (via guided participation) for families in preparation for offering an infant-guided approach to PO feeding. 

I hope this was helpful. As we both know, there are rarely black and white answers to our clinical questions. They require thoughtful deliberation and critical thinking to minimize risk for these most fragile of our patients.

 

 

Shaker Pediatric VFSS Seminar: Evidence-base, Physiology and Critical Thinking

QUESTION: I am considering the Pediatric Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies course. I am not in the hospital setting but I go with my patients almost always to their studies. I’m thinking this is going to be super beneficial for me with advocating for patients. Often times no compensatory strategies are used, I’m told they can’t use cold or carbonated liquids, etc. When in previous settings I have known these things not to be the case. Thoughts? Am I thinking correctly that this would be helpful for a private practice SLP as well?

CATHERINE’S ANSWER: It is wonderful that you can attend the VFSS to be part of the problem-solving. Yes, the course will absolutely be valuable to you. I designed it to fill that void that is out there, as well as to support well-thought-out studies that look far beyond “aspiration” and “thickening” It is not the radiographic image alone that contributes to an impression and plan of care. The course is designed to provide the latest evidence-base regarding evolution of/progressive changes (with age) in both structural relationships and physiology from birth through the age of about 6 (based on the data and research we have), when the swallow becomes adult-like in all respects for the typically developing child. This information helps to understand where to specifically map interventions. The focus of the course is not on looking for or finding “aspiration” but on objectifying swallowing physiology (or pathophysiology), considering how that physiology may impact airway protection and relative risk for airway invasion,  and then critically considering, in the setting of that child’s unique history and co-morbidities, how to optimize safety —and objectifying potential interventions there in radiology, finally providing the thoughtful impressions that round out the picture of mealtime impact for the team. These underpinnings for critical thinking are key for any treating therapist, even if that therapist does not conduct swallow studies. Making sense of the dataset, if useful data is gathered, is not the sole domain, nor the sole responsibility of the therapist doing the study. Understanding physiology and its connection to function and intervention is essential for treating therapists too—That knowledge base makes us more effective problem-solvers and critical thinkers every step of the way. So much underpins what we do as swallowing/feeding specialists. Physiology, and the impact of pathophysiology, is at its heart.

Some feedback from previous attendees to my Pediatric Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies seminar:

Even for someone like me who doesn’t do VFSS, I learned so much about the biomechanics of the pediatric swallow that now can inform my treatment. Leana, SLP

Catherine’s Swallow Studies course was the most detailed education I have had related to the dynamic interaction of the oral, pharyngeal and esophageal phases and how they play on one another. Her breadth of well-rounded knowledge and ability to easily relate it to practice is wonderful. She is so approachable which makes it a comfortable environment. Lisa, OTR

The information presented by Catherine in the VFSS course was so well researched. I feel confident that I can add all of this info to my clinical knowledge, and I know where to find more info (via the many citations)! Kari, SLP

As an outside provider (not in a hospital doing VFSS), this was great info on how I can communicate what I’m looking for and why I’m recommending a VFSS. The time watching videos of swallow studies helped my brain process the reports I read when I can’t be at the actual study in person. Minnie, SLP 

Catherine had a great way of effectively presenting information through multiple modalities. The x-ray stills, videos of so many different etiologies and the case studies in radiology have tremendously increased my confidence with pediatric MBSS. Heather, SLP

This course gave a great perspective on how to effectively determine and describe a disruption in swallow physiology for parents, physicians and other professionals. I loved the video examples! Rachel, SLP

The swallow studies course is an excellent synthesis of the dynamic aspects of pediatric swallowing and an exquisite way to transition to VFSS. Monique, SLP

What a great course on pediatric swallow studies. Now I know to think physiology, not just aspiration and penetration!! Yeah! Samantha, SLP

I am surprised and enlightened by how much I have learned considering I have been doing pediatric VFSS’s for 15 years! Natasha, SLP

I am just starting my VFSS training, and this course will help tremendously! A wonderful opportunity to consider differentials for many different clinical presentations. Jennifer, SLP

Catherine Shaker Seminars 2024: Deep Dives and Practice-Changing Essentials

Join Catherine in 2024 in Sacramento, Indy, Raleigh, Morristown NJ, and the Dallas area ….
  • Advanced Infant/Pediatric Dysphagia: Problem-Solving Complex Patients and Practice Issues
  • NICU Swallowing and Feeding: In the Nursery and After Discharge in EI
  • Pediatric Swallowing and Feeding: The Essentials
  • Pediatric Video Swallow Studies: From Physiology to Analysis

An interactive welcoming learning environment……with multiple planned times for dialogue and questions, problem-solving your patients, sharing our collective wisdom, discussing the evidence-based research…and our shared clinical challenges.

Our discussions will include critical thinking for all our patients, no matter the age. It’s not just learning “what to do” clinically but thoughtfully considering what not to do and why.      Because every feeding experience matters………

Click here for Catherine Shaker Seminars 2024 Brochure
Click here for Site/Location Info

Feeding Resources for Serving Infants, Children and Families

Feeding Flock - Feeding Assessment Tools

Sharing these resources for you to use as part of your differential and problem-solving when supporting infants and children with feeding and swallowing problems.

The Feeding Flock is an interdisciplinary team partnering with families to advance education, support clinical practice, and collaborate on research related to infant and child feeding challenges.

Through their new website (https://feedingflockteam.org), you can access these tools:

Early Feeding Skills Assessment Tool (EFS)

I developed this infant-guided tool with my nursing colleagues, Suzanne Thoyre RN PhD, and Karen Pridham RN PhD. It is a clinician-reported evidence-based tool with strong psychometric properties. It assesses infant feeding skills & behaviors during bottle or breastfeeding for preterm infants to 6 months. There are 19 items and 5 subscales:  Respiratory Regulation, Oral-Motor Function, Swallowing Coordination, Engagement, and Physiologic Stability. An excellent guide to cue-based infant-guided feeding in the NICU and beyond.

Neonatal Eating Assessment Tool (NeoEAT)

  • Measures feeding skills & behaviors during bottle and/or breastfeeding
  • 0-6 months
  • Parent-reported assessment tool

Pediatric Eating Assessment Tool (PediEAT)

  • Measures infant & child feeding behaviors during liquid and solid food feeding
  • 6 months to 7 years
  • Parent-reported assessment tool
TOOL

Child Oral and Motor Proficiency Scale (ChOMPS)

  • Measures observable eating, drinking & related motor skills relied upon for solid food eating
  • 6 months to 7 years
  • Parent-reported assessment tool

Impact of Feeding on the Parent and Family Scales (Feeding Impact Scales)

  • Measures the impact of the child’s feeding on parent & family
  • Birth to 18 years
  • Parent-reported assessment tool

Family Management Measure of Feeding (FaMM Feed)

  • Measures how families manage their child’s feeding difficulty
  • Birth to 18 years
  • Parent-reported assessment tool

 

Catherine’s Research Corner: Feeding Characteristics in Children With Food Allergies

Food allergy 2

So often, the children we follow for PFDs may have co-occurring food allergies and may show refusal/aversion, anxiety with eating, and poor intake, slowness in eating, immature diet, and delays in oral sensory-motor skills. When we complete our differentials, careful consideration of the “why” behind clinical presentation and parental report are essential.  We are sometimes the critical link in suggestions to the pediatrician that a consult be considered to further assess potential for food allergies that may have not been apparent and may be part of “why” the child has behaviors consistent with a Pediatric Feeding Disorder.

Kefford, J., Marshall, J., Packer, R. L., & Ward, E. C. (2023). Feeding characteristics in children with food allergies: A scoping review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00303

Catherine’s Research Corner: Aspiration of Breastmilk

One of my Pulmonology colleagues asked me, “Catherine, do you think it is worse to aspirate breastmilk or thickened formula?” My mind went so many directions… from relevant co-morbidities to overall clinical presentation, to history, to objective data about swallowing physiology from FEES, if there was bottle-feeding experience, and, if so, any comparative data about swallowing physiology…. and then to this latest evidence. The Pulmonologist and I had a wonderful discussion about the possible implications, and what we might take away from their results to inform our critical thinking and our practice.

Breastfeeding and bottle-feeding physiology have differences that, under certain conditions, may enhance airway protection at the breast — via the exquisite and protective swallow-breathe interface, which cannot be duplicated by a manmade nipple. We have no evidence that EBM via a manmade nipple will be as protective as EBM via mother’s breast, though it may offer a greater safety margin and less potential adverse effects than thickened formula. Perhaps more so in the setting of certain co-morbidities, or a unique infant. More data is needed to guide us, but this is certainly food for thought.

Hersh, C. J., Sorbo, J., Moreno, J. M., Hartnick, E., Fracchia, M. S., & Hartnick, C. J. (2022). Aspiration does not mean the end of a breast-feeding relationship. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 161, 111263.

ABSTRACT:

Objective: Breastfeeding is widely recommended as optimal nutrition for infants. However, there are no known publications on the impact of prandial aspiration of breast milk fed infants with dysphagia. The goal of this study was to assess pulmonary outcomes in infants with dysphagia who were given medical clearance for intake of
breast milk.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included review of 80 infants examined between August 2016 to March 2021. Patients were evaluated by an interdisciplinary team of providers in a tertiary pediatric aerodigestive center. Patient inclusion criteria included a VFSS with documented aspiration or penetration with thin liquids. Participants met inclusion criteria if given medical clearance for intake of breast milk despite aspiration risk.
Pulmonary health was monitored for three months following medical clearance for the consumption of breast milk. Pulmonary illness was defined as development of bronchiolitis, wheezing, unexplained stridor during feeding, croup, pneumonia, or persistent bacterial bronchitis requiring medical intervention.

Results: Forty-three males (54%) and 37 females (46%) enrolled in the study with an age range of 1 month–6 months corrected age. Mean age at initial VFSS was 3.6 months. Twenty-six out of 80 (32.5%) had a report of a mild cough but did not require intervention. Eight out of 80 (10%) received a diagnosis of a pulmonary illness. Seventy-two out of 80 (90%) did not report pulmonary illness.

Conclusion: This pilot study reveals that the majority (90%) of this single institution, small sample size cohort of breast milk fed infants with documented oropharyngeal dysphagia remained healthy despite continued intake of breast milk. Prospective investigation is warranted to follow pulmonary health outcomes longitudinally and a head-to-head comparative study would be helpful to identify whether there were indeed significant changes to pulmonary health according to differential feeding regimens offered and followed.