Enteral Nutrition Administration Record Prescribing Process Using Computerized Order Entry: A New Paradigm and Opportunities to Improve Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of malnutrition has been reported in 60% of hospitalized and up to 78% of patients admitted to intensive care units. Malnutrition has been associated with complications, such as infection, increased hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Nutritional support has been shown to reduce avoidable readmissions, pressure ulcers, malpractice claims, and hospital costs. Creating a new electronic nutrition administration record (ENAR) with a linked nutrition tab within the electronic health record (EHR) would promote enhanced patient outcomes by improving adherence to established institutional enteral nutrition (EN) protocols and achieving early energy goals. Additionally, it would enable a clear and standardized method for documentation and administration of EN therapy. METHODS: The multidisciplinary nutrition support team was established and met on a weekly basis to discuss strategies and barriers, identify stakeholders, evaluate the current state, and establish a process and workflow from the point of order entry, delivery, administration, and electronic documentation of orders of EN supplements. The aim of this article is to describe a systematic approach and process of creating a new ENAR with a linked nutrition tab in the EHR, and to illustrate the order panel built and lessons learned from the process. RESULTS: A separate nutrition tab was created in the EHR with minimal disruption in patient care and end-users' positive feedback for the new order panel. CONCLUSION: ENAR allows for easier data collection and promotes nutrition-related research that may result in enhanced patient care. Utilizing technology to build a full ENAR would result in optimized patient care and safety.

Computer versus paper system for recognition and management of sepsis in surgical intensive care.

BACKGROUND: A system to provide surveillance, diagnosis, and protocolized management of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) sepsis was undertaken as a performance improvement project. A system for sepsis management was implemented for SICU patients using paper followed by a computerized system. The hypothesis was that the computerized system would be associated with improved process and outcomes. METHODS: A system was designed to provide early recognition and guide patient-specific management of sepsis including (1) modified early warning signs-sepsis recognition score (MEWS-SRS; summative point score of ranges of vital signs, mental status, white blood cell count; after every 4 hours) by bedside nurse; (2) suspected site assessment (vascular access, lung, abdomen, urinary tract, soft tissue, other) at bedside by physician or extender; (3) sepsis management protocol (replicable, point-of-care decisions) at bedside by nurse, physician, and extender. The system was implemented first using paper and then a computerized system. Sepsis severity was defined using standard criteria. RESULTS: In January to May 2012, a paper system was used to manage 77 consecutive sepsis encounters (3.9 ± 0.5 cases per week) in 65 patients (77% male; age, 53 ± 2 years). In June to December 2012, a computerized system was used to manage 132 consecutive sepsis encounters (4.4 ± 0.4 cases per week) in 119 patients (63% male; age, 58 ± 2 years). MEWS-SRS elicited 683 site assessments, and 201 had sepsis diagnosis and protocol management. The predominant site of infection was abdomen (paper, 58%; computer, 53%). Recognition of early sepsis tended to occur more using the computerized system (paper, 23%; computer, 35%). Hospital mortality rate for surgical ICU sepsis (paper, 20%; computer, 14%) was less with the computerized system. CONCLUSION: A computerized sepsis management system improves care process and outcome. Early sepsis is recognized and managed with greater frequency compared with severe sepsis or septic shock. The system has a beneficial effect as a clinical standard of care for SICU patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.