Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Implementing the Free Water Protocol does not Result in Aspiration Pneumonia in Carefully Selected Patients with Dysphagia: A Systematic Review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Frazier Free Water Protocol was developed with the aim of providing patients with dysphagia an option to consume thin (i.e. unthickened) water in-between mealtimes. A systematic review was conducted of research published in peer-reviewed journals. An electronic search of the EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases was completed up to July 2016. A total of 8 studies were identified for inclusion: 5 randomised controlled trials, 2 cohort studies with matched cases and 1 single group pre-post intervention prospective study. A total of 215 rehabilitation inpatients and 30 acute patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia who required thickened fluids or were to remain ‘nil by mouth’, as determined by bedside swallow assessment and/or videofluoroscopy/fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, were included. Meta-analyses of the data from the rehabilitation studies revealed (1) low-quality evidence that implementing the protocol did not result in increased odds of having lung complications and (2) low-quality evidence that fluid intake may increase. Patients’ perceptions of swallow-related quality of life appeared to improve. This review has found that when the protocol is closely adhered to and patients are carefully selected using strict exclusion criteria, including an evaluation of their cognition and mobility, adult rehabilitation inpatients with dysphagia to thin fluids can be offered the choice of implementing the Free Water Protocol. Further research is required to determine if the Free Water Protocol can be implemented in settings other than inpatient rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Snyder NA, Feigal DW, Arieff AL. Hypernatremia in elderly patients. A heterogeneous, morbid, and iatrogenic entity. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:309–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shireffs SM, Merson SJ, Fraser SM, Archer DT. The effects of fluid restriction on hydration status and subjective feelings in man. Br J Nutr. 2004;91(6):951–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly J, Hunt BJ, Lewis RR, Swaminathan R, Moody A, Seed PT, Rudd A. Dehydration and venous thromboembolism after acute stroke. QJM. 2004;97(5):293–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Warren JL, Bacon WE, Harris T, McBean AM, Foley DJ, Phillips C. The burden and outcomes associated with dehydration among US elderly. Am J Public Health. 1991;84:1265–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Altman KW, Gou-Peri Y, Schaefer S. Consequence of dysphagia in the hospitalised patient. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(8):784–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and pneumonia: a clinical review. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:665–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Langmore SE, Terpenning MS, Schork A, Chen Y, Murray JT, Lopatin D, Loesche WJ. Predictors of aspiration pneumonia: how important is dysphagia? Dysphagia. 1998;13(2):69–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hibberd J, Fraser J, Chapman C, McQueen H, Wilson A. Can we use influencing factors to predict aspiration pneumonia in the United Kingdom? Multidiscip Respir Med. 2013;8(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Vivanti AP, Campbell KL, Suter MS, Hannan-Jones MT, Hulcombe JA. Contribution of thickened drinks, food and enteral parenteral fluids of fluid intake in hospitalized patients with dysphagia. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009;22:148–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuhlemeier KV, Palmer JB, Rosenberg D. Effect of liquid bolus consistency and delivery method on aspiration and pharyngeal retention in dysphagia patients. Dysphagia. 2001;16(2):119–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Logemann J. Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders/edition 2. Austin: PRO-ED; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dantas RO, Kern MK, Massey BT, Dodds WJ, Kahrilas PJ, Brasseur JG, Cook IJ, Lang IM. Effect of swallowed bolus variables on oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. Am J Physiol. 1990;258(5):G675–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Low J, Wyles C, Wilkinson T, Sainsbury R. The effect of compliance on clinical outcome for patients with dysphagia on videofluoroscopy. Dysphagia. 2001;16(2):123–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Garcia J, Chambers E, Molander M. Thickened liquids: practice patters of speech-language pathologists. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005;14(1):4–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Colodny N. Dysphagic independent feeders’ justifications for noncompliance with recommendations by a speech-language pathologist. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005;14:61–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leiter AE, Windsor J. Compliance of geriatric dysphagic patients with safe-swallowing instructions. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 1996;4:289–99.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Langmore SE. Why I like the free water protocol. SIG 13 perspectives on swallowing and swallowing disorders. Dysphagia. 2011;20:116–20.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Holas MA, DePippo KL, Reding MJ. Aspiration and relative risk of medical complications following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1994;51(10):1051–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Effros RM, Jacobs ER, Schapira RM, Biller J. Response of the lungs to aspiration. Am J Med. 2000;108(Suppl 4a):15S–9S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Panther K. The Frazier free water protocol. SIG 13 perspectives on swallowing and swallowing disorders. Dysphagia. 2005;14:4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Terpenning M, Bretz W, Lopatin D, Langmore S, Dominguez B, Loesche W. Bacterial colonization of saliva and plaque in the elderly. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;16(Suppl 4):S314–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van der Maarel-Wierink CD, Vanobbergen JN, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JM, de Baat C. Oral health care and aspiration pneumonia in frail older people: a systematic literature review. Gerodontology. 2013;30(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Adachi M, Ishihara K, Abe S, Okuda K, Ishikawa T. Effect of professional oral health care on the elderly living in nursing homes. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(2):191–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Azarpazhooh A, Leake L. Systematic review of the association between respiratory diseases and oral health. J Periodontol. 2006;77(9):1465–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roberts N, Moule P. Chlorhexidine and tooth-brushing as prevention strategies in reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia rates. Nurs Crit Care. 2011;16:295–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sato M, Yoshihara A, Miyazaki H. Preliminary study on the effect of oral care on recovery from surgery in elderly patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:820–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bronson-Lowe C, Leising K, Bronson-Lowe D, Lanham S. Effects of a free water protocol for patients with dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2008;23:423–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stewart RJ, Mehta SA, Veltman LE, Oleszek MR, Brady SL, Escobar NG. Water access for individuals with dysphagia who aspirate: research challenges. Brain Inj. 2012;26(4–5):309–792.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kenedi H, Foreman M, Graybeal D, Reynolds J, Campbell JB, Santos TO, Gibson M, Burgardt M. Positive and negative clinical indicators of the free water protocol in an acute care setting: two pilot studies North American brain injury society’s eleventh annual conference on brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013;28(5):31–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pooyania S, Galimova L, Buchel C, Daun R, Lenton L. Effects of a free water protocol on inpatients in a neurological rehabilitation setting. Stroke. 2013;44:174–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Karagiannis C. Quality of life for patients with dysphagia: what really matters? Dysphagia. 2013;25:354–62.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Carlaw, et al. Implementation of a water protocol in a rehabilitation setting for clients with thin liquid dysphagia: preliminary results of a randomized trial. Dysphagia. 2010;25:354–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Carlaw C, Finlayson H, Kathleen B, Tiffany V, Caroline M, Coney D, Steele C. A randomized controlled trial of a water protocol for clients with thin liquid dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2009;24:461–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karagiannis M. Quality of life for patients with dysphagia: what really matters? Dysphagia. 2010;25:354–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Becker A, Tews L, Lemke J. ‘An oral water protocol in rehabilitation patients with dysphagia for liquids’. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Convention, Chicago. 2008. http://www.asha.org/Events/convention/handouts/2008/1877_Tews_Lisa.htm.

  36. Carlaw C, Steele C. Implementation of a water protocol in a rehabilitation setting. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2009. http://www.asha.org/Events/convention/handouts/2009/1977_Carlaw_Caren.

  37. Schwartzentruber. A The effects of a free-fluid protocol on individuals with thin-liquid dysphagia. University of Western Ontario. 2011. https://www.uwo.ca/fhs/csd/ebp/reviews/2010-11/Schwartzentruber.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2015.

  38. Weber V. The challenges of initiating the Frazier Water Protocol on an acute care stroke unit. Inst Nurs Newsl. 2009;5(3):10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mosheim, J. Frazier Water Protocol 16:24:6. 2006. http://speech-language-pathology-audiology.advanceweb.com/Article/Frazier-Water-Protocol-1.aspx Accessed 30 June 2015.

  40. Coyle JL. Water, water everywhere, but why? Argument against free water protocols. SIG 13 perspectives on swallowing and swallowing disorders. Dysphagia. 2011;20:109–15.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA group preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Speed L, Harding KE. Tracheostomy teams reduce total tracheostomy time and increase speaking valve use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2013;28(2):216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kennelly J. Methodological approach to assessing the evidence. In: Handler A, Kennelly J, Peacock N, editors. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in reproductive and perinatal outcomes: the evidence from population-based interventions. Springer: Chicago; 2011. p. 7–19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.handbook.cochraneorg.

  46. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;1(11):9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Karagiannis M, Karagiannis TC. Oropharyngeal dysphagia, free water protocol and quality of life: an update from a prospective clinical trial. Hellenic J Nucl Med. 2014;17:26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Garon BR, Engle M, Ormiston C. A randomized control study to determine the effects of unlimited oral intake of water in patients with identified aspiration. Journal of Neurol Rehabil. 1997;11(3):139–48.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Carlaw C, Finlayson H, Beggs K, Visser T, Marcoux C, Coney D, Steele CM. Outcomes of a pilot water protocol project in a rehabilitation setting. Dysphagia. 2012;27(3):297–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Murray J, Doeltgen S, Miller M, Scholten I. Does a water protocol improve the hydration and health status of individuals with thin liquid aspiration following stroke? A randomized controlled trial. Dysphagia. 2016;31:424–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pooyania S, Vandurme L, Daun R, Buchel C. Effects of a Free Water Protocol on inpatients in a neuro-rehabilitation setting. Open J Ther Rehabil. 2015;2015(3):132–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Frey KL, Ramsberger G. Comparison of outcomes before and after implementation of a water protocol for patients with cerebrovascular accident and dysphagia. J Neurosci Nurs. 2011;43(3):165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bernard S, Loeslie V, Rabatin J. Brief report—use of a modified Frazier Water Protocol in critical illness survivors with pulmonary compromise and dysphagia: a pilot study. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(1):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Gillman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Search Terms and Keywords

Dysphag*, deglutition, aspiration, laryngeal penetration, swallow*, thickened fluid*, thick fluid*, thickened drink*, thick drink*, modified fluid*, modified drink*, nil by mouth, nil oral, NBM, water protocol*, liquid protocol*, fluid protocol*, regular fluid*, thin liquid*, free liquid*, regular liquid*, risk feed*, frazier*, frasier*, free fluid*, free water, thin fluid*, water, sip*, risk*, benefit*, positiv*, negativ*, outcome*, effectiv*, advantag*, disadvantag*, quality of life, chest infection*, respiratory tract infection*, LRTI, URTI, RTI, mortality rate*, rate* of mortality, complian*, compl*, cost*, satisf*, IV fluid*, intravenous fluid*.

Appendix 2

Downs and black quality assessment

Karagiannis et al. [46]

Carlaw et al. [50]

Garon et al. [49]

Karagiannis et al. [47]

Frey et al. [53]

Murray et al. [51]

Pooyania et al. [52]

Bernard et al. [54]

1. Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2. Are outcomes to be measured clearly described in Intro/Methods?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3. Are patient characteristics clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4. Are the interventions of interest clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5. Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

6. Are the main findings of the study clearly described?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

7. Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes?

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

8. Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9. Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described?

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

10. Have actual probability values been reported for the main outcomes except where the probability values is less that 0.001?

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

11. Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

12. Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

13. Were the staff, places and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

14. Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received?

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15. Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention?

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16. If any of the results of the study were based on ‘data dredging’, was this made clear?

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

17. In trials and cohort studies, do the analysis adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients of in case–control studies is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

18. Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate?

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

19. Was compliance with the intervention reliable?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

20. Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? (were they clearly described?)

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

21. Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohorts) or were the cases and controls (case–control studies) recruited from the same population?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

22. Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the case and controls (case–control studies) recruited over the same period of time?

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

23. Were subjects randomised to intervention groups?

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

24. Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both parties and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable?

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

25. Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn?

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

26. Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account?

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

27. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%?

5

5

3

3

3

5

1

0

Score

29

28

23

25

18

28

23

13

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillman, A., Winkler, R. & Taylor, N.F. Implementing the Free Water Protocol does not Result in Aspiration Pneumonia in Carefully Selected Patients with Dysphagia: A Systematic Review. Dysphagia 32, 345–361 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9761-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9761-3

Keywords

Navigation