Should handgrip strength be considered when choosing the administration mode of oral nutritional supplements in geriatric patients? A secondary analysis of the MEDPass Trial.

OBJECTIVE: It is important to individualize nutrition therapy and to identify whether certain patient groups benefit from a specific intervention such as oral nutritional supplements (ONS). This study investigated whether patients with weak handgrip strength (HGS) benefit better from ONS administration in the Medication Pass Nutritional Supplement Program (MEDPass) mode regarding the individual coverage of energy and protein requirements throughout their hospitalization. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the intention-to-treat data set of the randomized controlled MEDPass trial was conducted. Weak HGS was defined as <27 kg for men and <16 kg for women. Linear mixed-effect models adjusted for the stratification factors energy density of ONS and nutritional risk screening 2002 score were used to address the aim of the study. RESULTS: We included 188 participants. Energy and protein coverage did not differ between the patients with weak or normal HGS depending on ONS administration mode (P = 0.084, P = 0.108). Patients with weak HGS and MEDPass administration mode tended to have the lowest energy and protein coverage (estimated mean, 77.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69.3%-85% and estimated mean, 95.1%; 95% CI, 85.3%-105%, respectively). Patients with weak HGS and conventional ONS administration had the highest energy and protein coverage (estimated mean, 90%; 95% CI, 82.8%-97.2% and estimated mean, 110.2%; 95% CI, 101.3%-119%, respectively). CONCLUSION: No clear recommendations regarding the mode of ONS administration depending on HGS can be made. In clinical practice, appetite and satiety in patients with weak HGS should be monitored, and the ONS administration mode should be adjusted accordingly.

Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides additional insights into instrument quality and more rigorous validity evidence. Drawing from an extensive review of the methodological and applied validation literature on mixed methods, we showcase our use of mixed methods for validation which applied the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility on data collected with an instrument measuring interprofessional collaboration in the context of Swiss healthcare, named the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration. METHODS: We employ a convergent parallel mixed methods design to analyse quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data. Data were collected from staff, supervisors, and patients of a university hospital and regional hospitals in the German and Italian speaking regions of Switzerland. We compare quantitative ratings and qualitative comments to evaluate the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility, which together form part of an instrument's construct validity evidence. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 435 staff, 133 supervisors, and 189 patients were collected. Analysis of congruence potentially provides explanations why respondents' comments are off topic. Convergence between quantitative ratings and qualitative comments can be interpreted as an indication of convergent validity. Credibility provides a summary evaluation of instrument quality. These quality criteria provide evidence that questions were understood as intended, provide construct validity, and also point to potential item quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods provide alternative means of collecting construct validity evidence. Our suggested procedures can be easily applied on empirical data and allow the congruence, convergence, and credibility of questionnaire items to be evaluated. The described procedures provide an efficient means of enhancing the rigor of an instrument and can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional quantitative psychometric approaches.

MEDPass versus conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements - A randomized controlled trial comparing coverage of energy and protein requirements.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in the hospital setting is important to reach individual protein and energy goals in patients at risk for malnutrition. Compliance with ONS can be challenging but may be improved by prescribing ONS in smaller portions with medication rounds (MEDPass). We compared the likelihood of meeting energy and protein requirements in patients receiving ONS with MEDPass versus conventional ONS administration. METHODS: The MEDPass Trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label superiority trial conducted on medical and geriatric wards in a University Hospital in Switzerland. The MEDPass group was allocated to receive 50 ml of ONS four times per day with the medication rounds. The control group received ONS per conventional care between the meals. The primary outcome was the percentage of energy in relation to the individual requirement. Secondary outcomes included the coverage of protein intake in relation to the individual requirement, the amount of daily consumed ONS, the course of handgrip strength (HGS), body weight appetite and nausea. Furthermore, we compared 30-day mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS) was studied in medical patients. RESULTS: From November 22nd, 2018 until November 30th, 2021, 204 patients were included in the trial (MEDPass group n = 100, control group n = 104). A total of 203 patients at nutritional risk were analyzed in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). Regarding the primary endpoint, there was no difference in the coverage of energy requirement between the MEDPass and control group (82 vs. 85% (Δ -3%, 95%CI -11 to 4%), p = 0.38). Similarly, no differences were found for the secondary outcomes including coverage of protein requirement (101 vs. 104% (Δ -3%, 95% CI -12 -7%), p = 0.57, average daily intake of ONS (170 vs 173 ml (Δ - 3 ml, 95% CI -14 to 8 ml), p = 0.58) and 30-day mortality (3 vs. 8 patients, OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-1.4), p = 0.15). The course of HGS, body weight, appetite and nausea did not differ between the groups (p = 0.29, p = 0.14, p = 0.65 and p = 0.94, respectively). The per protocol analysis including 178 patients showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Within this controlled trial setting, we found a high compliance for ONS intake and high coverage of protein requirements but no further improvement when ONS was administered using MEDPass compared to conventional care. MEDPass administration may provide an alternative that is easy to integrate into nursing routines, which may lead to lower workload with cost benefits and reduction of food waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03761680.

Current Practice of Assessing and Monitoring Muscle Strength, Muscle Mass and Muscle Function during Nutritional Care by Dietitians in Switzerland-An Online Survey.

Muscle parameters are recommended as diagnostic criteria for malnutrition and sarcopenia in various guidelines. However, little is known about the application of muscle parameters in daily practice of nutritional care. The aim of this study was to investigate the current practice of the application of muscle parameters, along with its promoting factors and barriers by dietitians in Switzerland. A 29-item literature-based online survey was developed and distributed via the Swiss professional association of dietitians. The data were analyzed descriptively, and relationships between demographic data and usage were examined. Dietitians (n = 117) from all three language regions completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Musculature was classified as important for the assessment of nutritional status. Body weight (89.7%), handgrip strength (87.2%), bioimpedance analysis (BIA) (87.1%) and Body Mass Index (66.7%) were considered as most significant for evaluation of nutritional status. Seventy-point nine percent (70.9%) of dietitians include at least one muscle parameter in their assessment; BIA was the parameter most often included (73.5%). However, the frequency of use of muscle parameter in daily practice was rather low. Only 23.1% applied BIA on a weekly basis. Lack of knowledge (78.6%), practical experience (71.8%) and lack of equipment (77.8%) were most frequently stated as barriers for usage. The general application of muscle parameters in nutritional care is still lacking. There is an opportunity to further strengthen diagnosis and patient monitoring via a stronger application of muscle parameters in daily practice. Practical training and education could help promote their application.

Distribution of oral nutritional supplements with medication: Is there a benefit? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Disease-related malnutrition remains a major burden for patients and health care systems. The Medication Pass Nutritional Supplement Program (MEDPass) involves providing patients with oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in unusually small amounts three to four times per day during medication rounds. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of MEDPass ONS administration on compliance, total energy and protein intake, food intake, body weight and handgrip strength in hospitalized adults and nursing-home residents. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and before-after studies. Validated tools specific to the study design were used to assess the included studies. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified, including two RCTs, three non-RCTs, and five before-after trials. Compliance increased by 23.4% to 66% with MEDPass administration, resulting in compliance rates of 72.7% to 96%. With MEDPass administration, body weight increased by 1% to 6.8% or remained stable. The assessed evidence on total energy intake is ambiguous for protein, with a trend toward an increased intake. Trials on energy intake from food show mixed results as well. One study suggested a slight increase in handgrip strength. The included studies predominantly raise concerns for bias. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MEDPass ONS administration increases compliance in hospitalized adults and nursing-home residents. For all other outcomes, robust and well-powered trials are necessary.

Energy and protein intake in medical and geriatric inpatients with MEDPass versus conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements: study protocol for the randomized controlled MEDPass Trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease-related malnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized medical and geriatric inpatients. It is associated with negative outcomes such as muscle wasting, decline of functional status, and increased morbidity and mortality. Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are frequently used in nutritional therapy to increase intake. However, compliance to ONS is often limited and maybe improved by prescribing ONS in small portions timed with the medication (MEDPass). However, it is unknown whether the MEDPass administration enhances patients' total energy and protein intake. METHODS: The MEDPass Trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label superiority trial. Patients in the MEDPass group receive 50 ml of ONS four times per day, distributed with the medication rounds. Patients in the control group receive ONS between meals. The primary outcome is average daily energy intake (% of calculated daily requirement). For our power analysis, we assumed that administration of ONS in the MEDPass administration mode increases energy intake by at least 10% (i.e., by 200 kcal for an average energy requirement of 2200 kcal/day). Thus, with the inclusion of 200 patients, this trial has 80% power to demonstrate that intervention group patients have an average intake of 2200 kcal/day (SD 500 kcal) versus 2000 kcal/day (SD 500 kcal) in control group patients. Energy and protein intakes from ONS and all food consumed are monitored continuously throughout the hospital stay and are statistically compared to the patient's requirements. Secondary outcomes include average daily protein intake (% of calculated daily requirement), average intake of ONS/day, the course of body weight, handgrip strength, appetite, and nausea. Furthermore, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality are assessed. The primary statistical analysis will be performed as an intention-to-treat analysis adjusted for the stratification factors used in randomization. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial assessing total energy and protein intake for the entire hospitalization period in patients receiving MEDPass versus conventional ONS administration. Thus, the MEDPass Trial will fill a gap and answer this relevant clinical question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03761680 . Registered on 3 December 2018. Kofam.ch SNCTP000003191 . Registered on 15 October 2018.