Dysphagia management often focuses heavily on what we can observe: aspiration, residue, and timing variability. While these signs provide valuable insight, an overemphasis on visual findings without context can distract from what truly matters—how well the patient functions. Dysphagia can have serious consequences for a patient's health and well-being. True success in dysphagia care isn’t defined by a “perfect” swallow study—it’s defined by whether a person can swallow safely and efficiently enough to support nutrition, hydration, overall health, and individual goals.

​

What really defines functional swallowing?

 

Effective swallowing supports four core outcomes:

​

• Nutrition: Ensuring sufficient intake of macro- and micronutrients to support healing, strength, energy, and other needs.

• Hydration: Maintaining fluid balance to support homeostasis, cognition, organ function, and more.

• Pulmonary health: Reducing the risk of dysphagia-related pneumonia and other respiratory complications.

• Quality of life: Enabling social connection, enjoyment of meals, and support for factors related to patient values.

​

These outcomes—not just aspiration—should drive evaluation and treatment. Over-reliance on visual markers may lead to well-meaning but harmful decisions like overly restrictive diets, unnecessary NPO status, or defaulting to thickened liquids without clear benefit. Keep in mind, this type of approach will naturally lead to collaboration with other medical providers, particularly when something falls outside of your scope of practice.

​​​​

Why aspiration alone shouldn’t dictate treatment

 

It's common to see impaired physiology on a video fluoroscopic swallow study (aspiration, delayed swallow initiation, and residue). Yet, the patient remains functional: no history of pneumonia, stable nutrition, and active social engagement. On the flip side, someone might be labeled "unsafe" due to observed aspiration and placed on thickened liquids or NPO despite minimal risk factors.

When we treat the video over the person, we risk doing harm. Making recommendations that contribute to reduced fluid intake, decreased nutritional density, and social isolation carry their own dangers, potentially greater than the dysphagia itself.

​

Safety and efficiency: Two sides of the same coin

 

Swallowing function can be broken down into two dimensions:

​

• Safety: The ability to prevent material from entering the airway.

• Efficiency: The ability to clear the oral cavity and pharynx effectively without excess work.

 

Both matter. A “safe” swallow on video may still be so inefficient that the patient can’t sustain nutrition. Conversely, someone with trace aspiration may compensate well and remain healthy.

A guiding question then becomes: Can this patient eat and drink with sufficient swallowing safety and efficiency to support nutrition, hydration, and quality of life without preventable complications?

​​​​

Clinical reasoning: Moving beyond gut instinct

 

Decisions in dysphagia management are often driven more by intuition than evidence. This is not just a dysphagia issue. It is a common human tendency. But it is also a risky one. To provide effective, ethical care, clinicians must apply critical reasoning:

​

• Deductive reasoning starts from known truths and applies them logically.

• Inductive reasoning considers generalizations based on observed patterns.

​

Problems arise when we base decisions on flawed assumptions, like the belief that all aspiration leads to pneumonia, or that NPO status is always protective. These shortcuts can undermine patient autonomy and lead to unnecessary risk. Learn more about inductive and deductive reasoning on Functional Swallowing Part 1: What It Means and Why It Matters.

​​​​

Choosing interventions: Weighing impact and burden

 

Every intervention has a cost—physically, emotionally, or socially. Our job is to minimize harm while maximizing benefit. Before recommending a strategy like thickened liquids, ask:

​

• What is the evidence supporting this intervention for a patient like mine? 

• Are there contraindications?

• What is the patient burden vs. potential benefit?

• Does the patient agree to and understand the plan?

​

If the intervention is high-burden with minimal proven benefit, it may be time to reconsider.​​

​

The impact vs. burden matrix

 

Clinicians can use the impact vs. burden matrix to weigh intervention options:

​

• High-impact, low-burden interventions (an example may be implementing an oral hygiene routine) should be prioritized.

• Low-impact, high-burden interventions (an example may be chronic use of thickened liquids) should be carefully reconsidered or deprioritized.

​

Ultimately, the patient or their legal representative has the final say. Their perspective should guide which interventions are experienced as burdensome and which align with their personal goals and values.
The Patient Self-Determination Act makes informed choice a legal right. Clinicians should provide education that clearly outlines the benefits, risks, and trade-offs of all options, equipping patients to make informed decisions about their care without coercion.​​

​

Prognosis matters

 

Two patients with similar swallow studies might require entirely different care plans. Consider:

​

• Is the underlying condition acute or progressive?

• What's the patient's medical status, and what factors influence functional reserve?

• Are they recovering or declining?

​

Understanding the medical context is critical. A patient with a progressive illness may benefit more from a plan focused on maximizing quality of life and supporting safe intake for as long as possible, whereas a patient recovering from an acute illness may benefit more from a restorative intervention aimed at improving swallowing function over time.

Effective management may not mean correcting every swallow abnormality. Instead, it may mean optimizing the function for that individual, at that point in time, in alignment with their health status and personal priorities.

​

A different standard of care

 

Dysphagia care is ever changing—from reactive decisions based on aspiration alone to proactive, functional, patient-centered care. When we emphasize nutrition, hydration, pulmonary health, and quality of life, we help people not just survive—but live well.

To learn more about applying a function-first approach to dysphagia care, explore my course Functional Swallowing Part 1: What It Means and Why It Matters. The course aligns dysphagia interventions with nutrition, hydration, pulmonary health, and quality of life while promoting ethical, evidence-based decision-making. You can also enhance your speech-language pathology continuing education with Functional Swallowing Part 2: Adverse Events and Nutrition and Functional Swallowing Part 3: Hydration and Quality of Life. 

​

*This article, with perhaps some minor differences, first appeared on MedBridge.com, specifically here.

​

Feel free to email me for more details - Tim@swallowthegap.com

📣 Want to Learn More?
@SwallowPatho on Instagram

Follow on LinkedIn

Subscribe to Newsletter​