View in EDS PDF Full Text

Guidance in Tracheostomy Care for Speech-Language Pathologists: The Green Light Tool.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Guidance in Tracheostomy Care for Speech-Language Pathologists: The Green Light Tool.
Authors: Penrod, Sara1 sara.penrod@mainehealth.org, Forgit, Dory1, Griffin, Lindsay2
Source: American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Jul2025, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p2309-2323. 15p.
Subject Terms: *Speech therapists, *Retrospective studies, *Confidence, *Pre-tests & post-tests, *Comparative studies, *Speech therapy, Tracheotomy, Medical protocols, Clinical medicine, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Food consumption, Descriptive statistics, Tracheotomy equipment, Green light, Medical records, Acquisition of data, One-way analysis of variance, Length of stay in hospitals, Sociodemographic factors, Data analysis software, Decision trees, Psychosocial factors
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of the Green Light Tool for the evaluation and treatment of tracheostomy patients hospitalized at Maine Medical Center affects the time to initiating oral nutrition, use of speaking valves, and/or time to decannulation for temporary tracheostomies. Method: This pre-/post-intervention study uses retrospective chart review to collect data pre-intervention (e.g., Time 1) and at two time points post-intervention: 6 and 12 months after the Green Light Tool was implemented (e.g., Times 2 and 3, respectively). Results: Data from 200 participants were included (Time 1: n = 100, Time 2: n = 50, Time 3: n = 50). Participants from each time period were similar along sex, age, and diagnosis. Participants in Time 1 had a statistically significant shorter length of stay compared to participants in Time 2 (adjusted [adj] p = .005) and Time 3 (adj p = .010). Following implementation of the Green Light Tool, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) received assessment consults sooner after a temporary tracheostomy was placed (adj p < .001), and patients with tracheostomies were evaluated by SLPs earlier in their hospitalization (adj p = .006). There was no significant difference on patient-centered outcomes, such as time to speaking valve use, capping trials, decannulation, oral trials, diet initiation, modified barium swallow, or placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. Conclusions: Use of the Green Light Tool improved the timeliness and consistency with which SLPs evaluated patients and the self-reported comfort SLPs felt when assessing patients with tracheostomies. Possible reasons for a lack of effect on patient-centered outcomes, including the interference of COVID-19, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of the Green Light Tool for the evaluation and treatment of tracheostomy patients hospitalized at Maine Medical Center affects the time to initiating oral nutrition, use of speaking valves, and/or time to decannulation for temporary tracheostomies. Method: This pre-/post-intervention study uses retrospective chart review to collect data pre-intervention (e.g., Time 1) and at two time points post-intervention: 6 and 12 months after the Green Light Tool was implemented (e.g., Times 2 and 3, respectively). Results: Data from 200 participants were included (Time 1: n = 100, Time 2: n = 50, Time 3: n = 50). Participants from each time period were similar along sex, age, and diagnosis. Participants in Time 1 had a statistically significant shorter length of stay compared to participants in Time 2 (adjusted [adj] p = .005) and Time 3 (adj p = .010). Following implementation of the Green Light Tool, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) received assessment consults sooner after a temporary tracheostomy was placed (adj p < .001), and patients with tracheostomies were evaluated by SLPs earlier in their hospitalization (adj p = .006). There was no significant difference on patient-centered outcomes, such as time to speaking valve use, capping trials, decannulation, oral trials, diet initiation, modified barium swallow, or placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. Conclusions: Use of the Green Light Tool improved the timeliness and consistency with which SLPs evaluated patients and the self-reported comfort SLPs felt when assessing patients with tracheostomies. Possible reasons for a lack of effect on patient-centered outcomes, including the interference of COVID-19, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10580360
DOI:10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00466