Outcomes of a Pilot Water Protocol Project in a Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable clinical interest in the risks and benefits of offering oral water intake, in the form of water protocols, to patients with thin-liquid dysphagia. We describe the design and implementation of a water protocol for patients in a rehabilitation setting with videofluoroscopically confirmed thin-liquid aspiration. The GF Strong Water Protocol (GFSWP) is an interdisciplinary initiative, with roles and accountabilities specified for different members of the interprofessional health-care team. Rules of the water protocol specify mode of water access (independent, supervised), the implementation of any safe swallowing strategies recommended on the basis of the patient's videofluoroscopy, and procedures for evaluating and addressing oral care needs. Trial implementation of the water protocol in 15 participants showed that they remained free of adverse events, including pneumonia, over the course of an initial 14-day trial and continuing until discharge from the facility (range = 13-108 days). Seven participants were randomly assigned to a 14-day control phase in which they received standard care (without water access). Fluid intake measures taken after the oral water intake phase were increased (mean = 1,845 cc; 95% confidence interval: 1,520-2,169 cc) compared to those in the control phase (mean = 1,474 cc; 95% CI: 1,113-1,836 cc), with oral water intake measures comprising, on average, 563 cc (range = 238-888 cc) of the total post water trial fluid intake values. Fluid intake increased at least 10% of the calculated fluid requirements in 11/15 participants who received oral water access. These participants reported favorable quality-of-life outcomes, measured using the Swal-QOL. These findings support the implementation of the GFSWP, including its exclusion criteria, rules, and plans of care, for rehabilitation patients who aspirate thin liquids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".