Nutrition practices in Australia and New Zealand in response to evolving evidence: Results of three point-prevalence audits.

BACKGROUND: The Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) was a 4000-patient trial in which augmented enteral calorie dose did not influence outcomes. AIM: We aimed to quantify practice change following TARGET. METHODS: Three single-day, prospective, multicentre, point-prevalence audits of adult patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in participating Australian and New Zealand intensive care units at 10:00 AM were conducted: (i) 2010 (before conducting TARGET); (ii) 2018 (immediately before publishing TARGET results); and (iii) 2020 (2 years after TARGET publication). Data included baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and nutrition data. Data are n (%), mean ± standard deviation, or median [interquartile range]. Differences in enteral calorie prescription between 2018 and 2020 were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: The percentage of patients receiving EN (2010 42%, 2018 38%, 2020 33%; P = 0.012) and the prescription of calorie-dense EN formula (≥1.5 kcal/ml) (2010 33%, 2018 24%, 2020 23%; P = 0.038) decreased over time. However, when comparing prepublication and postpublication (2018-2020), calorie dose and calorie density were similar: 22.9 ± 8.6 versus 23.4 ± 12.8 kcal/kg/day (P = 0.816) and <1.5 kcal/ml: 76 versus 77% (P = 0.650), respectively. CONCLUSION: In Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral calorie dose and calorie density of prescribed EN were similar before TARGET publication and 2 years later.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinimetric properties of the core outcome measurement instruments for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness (CONCISE).

BACKGROUND: CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high. CONCLUSIONS: Variable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.

Core outcome measures for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness: an international modified Delphi consensus study evaluation (CONCISE).

BACKGROUND: Clinical research on nutritional and metabolic interventions in critically ill patients is heterogenous regarding time points, outcomes and measurement instruments used, impeding intervention development and data syntheses, and ultimately worsening clinical outcomes. We aimed to identify and develop a set of core outcome domains and associated measurement instruments to include in all research in critically ill patients. METHODS: An updated systematic review informed a two-stage modified Delphi consensus process (domains followed by instruments). Measurement instruments for domains considered 'essential' were taken through the second stage of the Delphi and a subsequent consensus meeting. RESULTS: In total, 213 participants (41 patients/caregivers, 50 clinical researchers and 122 healthcare professionals) from 24 countries contributed. Consensus was reached on time points (30 and 90 days post-randomisation). Three domains were considered 'essential' at 30 days (survival, physical function and Infection) and five at 90 days (survival, physical function, activities of daily living, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function). Core 'essential' measurement instruments reached consensus for survival and activities of daily living, and 'recommended' measurement instruments for physical function, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function. No consensus was reached for a measurement instrument for Infection. Four further domains met criteria for 'recommended,' but not 'essential,' to measure at 30 days post-randomisation (organ dysfunction, muscle/nerve function, nutritional status and wound healing) and three at 90 days (frailty, body composition and organ dysfunction). CONCLUSION: The CONCISE core outcome set is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use at 30 and 90 days post-randomisation, in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults.

Protein prescription and delivery practices in critically ill adults: A survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care dietitians.

BACKGROUND: Protein provision is thought to be integral to attenuating muscle wasting in critical illness, yet patients receive half of that prescribed. As international guidelines lack definitive evidence to support recommendations, understanding clinicians' views relating to protein practices is of importance. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe Australia and New Zealand intensive care unit (ICU) dietitians' protein prescription and perceived delivery practices in critically ill adults, including common barriers and associations between ICU clinical experience and protein prescriptions for different clinical conditions. METHODS: A 42-item descriptive quantitative survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care dietitians was disseminated through nutrition and ICU society e-mailing lists. Data were collected on respondent demographics and reported protein practices including questions related to a multitrauma case study. Data were analysed using descriptive and content analysis and reported as n (%). Fisher's exact tests were used to compare experience and protein prescriptions. RESULTS: Of the 67 responses received (one excluded due to >50% missing data), more than 80% of respondents stated they would prescribe 1.2-1.5 g protein/kg bodyweight/day for most critically ill patients, most commonly using European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines to support prescriptions (n = 61/66, 92%). Most respondents (n = 49/66, 74%) thought their practice achieved 61-80% of protein prescriptions, with frequently reported barriers including fasting periods (n = 59/66, 89%), avoiding energy overfeeding (n = 50/66, 76%), and gastrointestinal intolerance (n = 47/66, 71%). No associations between years of ICU experience and protein prescriptions for 14 of the 15 predefined clinical conditions were present. CONCLUSIONS: Australian and New Zealand ICU dietitians use international guidelines to inform protein prescriptions of 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day for most clinical conditions, and protein prescriptions do not appear to be influenced by years of ICU experience. Key perceived barriers to protein delivery including avoidance of energy overfeeding and gastrointestinal intolerance could be explored to improve protein adequacy.

Are point-of-care urine albumin-creatinine ratio measurements accurate in the critically ill?

BACKGROUND: In the critical care environment, elevated albuminuria values show capacity to reflect illness severity and predict mortality and hence assessing albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) at the bedside has potential clinical benefit Point-of-care (POC) analysers offer rapid results but may be less accurate then laboratory analysis. METHODS: Critically ill adult patients with a urinary catheter in situ had albumin, creatinine, and ACR measurements performed via laboratory and POC analysis. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation) or median [interquartile range]. Measurement agreement was assessed by Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement, and classification by Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Albumin, creatinine, and ACR analysis was performed for 30 patients. Lin's correlation coefficient showed 'substantial' agreement for albumin and ACR and 'almost perfect' agreement for creatinine for POC vs laboratory analysis. POC vs laboratory analysis also showed poor agreement for identification of normal ACR (>1 mg/mmol) and mild urine ACR (1-3 mg/mmol) and 'substantial' agreement for moderately increased urine ACR (3-30 mg/mmol). CONCLUSIONS: ACR POC values appear to provide an accurate and rapid method that has potential to provide an early indication of injury severity and mortality risk in the critically ill.

Weekend days are not required to accurately measure oral intake in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition studies in patients admitted to hospital frequently disregard oral intake because measurement is time-intensive and logistically challenging. In free-living populations, weighed food records (WFR) are the gold-standard and are conducted on weekend and weekdays to capture variations in intake, although this may not translate during hospitalisation. The present study aimed to determine whether oral intake differs between weekends and weekdays in hospitalised patients. METHODS: For adult patients initially admitted to the intensive therapy unit with a moderate-severe head injury over a 12-month period, WFR were conducted each week on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday throughout hospitalisation. Meal components were weighed before and after consumption, and energy and protein intakes were calculated using specialised software. Data are reported as the mean (SD). Differences were assessed using paired t-tests and agreement using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients had WFR collected on 220 days, 68% (n = 149) on weekdays and 32% (n = 71) on weekends. Overall, daily intakes were 5.72 (3.67) MJ [1367 (877) kcal] and 62 (40) g protein. There were no differences in intake across all days (P = 0.937 energy, P = 0.797 protein), nor between weekdays and weekends, in weeks 1-3 of oral intake (all P > 0.1). Limits of agreement between mean intakes across days were wide for energy [range -11.20 to 9.55 MJ (-2680 to 2283 kcal)] and protein (range -125 to 110 g). CONCLUSIONS: Grouped energy and protein intakes from WFR in hospitalised patients are similar on weekdays and weekends, although large intra-patient variations occur. Future quantification of oral intake during hospitalisation should include as many days as feasible, although not necessarily weekend days, to reflect true intake.

Practitioner evaluation of an online oral health and risk assessment tool for young patients.

Aim To test the validity and acceptability of an online oral health assessment and biofeedback tool for young patients (under 17) for use in general dental practice.Methods A convenience sample of thirteen practitioners were recruited to test the functionality of a novel version of the Denplan PreViser Patient Assessment tool (DEPPA) developed for young patients (YDEPPA). Dentists who had completed eight or more assessments during a one month window were sent a link to an online feedback survey, comprising eight statements about YDEPPA, with scoring options of 0-10, where a score of 10 indicated complete agreement with the relevant questions. Verbatim comments were encouraged. The clinical data submitted were held in a central database in an encrypted format so that only the user practice could identify individual patients.Results Twelve practitioners completed eight or more assessments and were included in the survey. A total of 175 patient assessments were received. Ten practitioners completed the on-line survey. The statement 'YDEPPA produces a valid measurement of each patient's oral health' received an average feedback score of 8.8. The statement 'The full YDEPPA report is a valuable communication aid' received a score of 9.6. Feedback was generally very positive with all scores >8.2. Constructive critical feedback was received for the caries risk aspect of the YDEPPA protocol, with suggestions made for improving objectivity of data inputs. Eighty-one percent of the verbatim comments received were positive.Conclusions Once the caries risk issues raised by pilot dentists have been addressed, YDEPPA appears suitable as a pragmatic analytical and biofeedback tool for use in general dental practice to assess the oral health of young patients, and to facilitate education and engagement of young patients and their parents/carers in positive health behaviours.

Reassessment of a simple chemical method using DCIP for screening for haemoglobin E.

BACKGROUND: Haemoglobin E is a variant haemoglobin that can lead to considerable morbidity in compound heterozygous states with beta thalassaemia. Therefore, its detection is important because it permits antenatal counselling. The parts of the world where haemoglobin E is prevalent are resource poor and detection can therefore be problematical. A simple visual test using 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol (DCIP) has been developed in Thailand, but its use has not become widespread. This test has now become available in kit form. AIMS/METHODS: To evaluate the new DCIP test kit for the detection of haemoglobin E. RESULTS: Seventeen of 18 samples from individuals with haemoglobin E gave positive results and one gave an equivocal result. False positive or equivocal results were seen in three of 21 individuals with other disorders of globin chain synthesis but were not seen in normal subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the kit and confirmed the usefulness of the DCIP test as a screening test for haemoglobin E. In countries with limited health resources, its use would reduce the number of samples requiring referral to a central laboratory for definitive tests.

The relationship between general health and lifestyle factors and oral health outcomes.

Aim The primary research question addressed in this paper was 'are lower than average oral health scores observed for those patients who report problems with general health and high-risk lifestyle factors?'Methods A population analysis was conducted on the first 37,330 patients, assessed by 493 dentists in the UK, to receive a Denplan PreViser Patient Assessment (DEPPA) at their dental practice. The Oral Health Score (OHS) was generated using a mixture of patient-reported factors and clinical findings and is an integrated component of DEPPA. Patients' self-reported risk factors included diabetes status, tobacco use and alcohol consumption. Patients' general health was measured by self-report, that is, a yes/no answer to the question 'have you experienced any major health problems in the last year for example a stroke, heart attack or cancer?' Multivariable linear regression analysis was employed to study the association between the OHS and general health and risk factors for patients in the DEPPA cohort.Results The mean age of participants was 54 years (range 17-101; S.D. 16 years) and the mean OHS for the group was 78.4 (range 0-100; S.D. 10). 1,255 (3%) of patients reported experiencing a major health problem in the previous year. In the fully adjusted model, diabetes, tobacco use, excessive alcohol consumption (three or more drinks per day), and poor overall health in the preceding year were all associated with a statistically significant drop in the mean OHS of patients. Having diabetes was associated with a 1.7 point (95% CI 1.3-2.1, P <0.001) drop in OHS, tobacco use was associated with a 2.7 point (95% CI 2.5-2.9, P <0.001) drop in OHS, and excessive alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.8 point (95% CI 1.3-2.4, P <0.001) drop in OHS. The mean OHS in patients who reported a major health problem in the preceding year was 0.7 points (95% CI 0.2-1.2, P = 0.006) lower than that of patients who did not report a major health problem in the preceding year.Conclusion The current study has demonstrated that patient reported general health and risk factors were negatively associated with an overall composite oral health score outcome in a large population of over 37,000 patients examined by 493 dentists. While the clinical significance of some of the reported associations is unknown, the data lend support to the growing body of evidence linking the oral and systemic health of individuals. Therefore, GDPs may be in a unique position to influence the lifestyle and general health of patients as part of their specific remit to attain and maintain optimal oral health.

The effect of augmenting early nutritional energy delivery on quality of life and employment status one year after ICU admission.

Augmenting energy delivery during the acute phase of critical illness may reduce mortality and improve functional outcomes. The objective of this sub-study was to evaluate the effect of early augmented enteral nutrition (EN) during critical illness, on outcomes one year later. We performed prospective longitudinal evaluation of study participants, initially enrolled in The Augmented versus Routine approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET), a feasibility study that randomised critically ill patients to 1.5 kcal/ml (augmented) or 1.0 kcal/ml (routine) EN administered at the same rate for up to ten days, who were alive at one year. One year after randomisation Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2) and EuroQol-5D-5L quality of life surveys, and employment status were assessed via telephone survey. At one year there were 71 survivors (1.5 kcal/ml 38 versus 1.0 kcal/ml 33; P=0.55). Thirty-nine (55%) patients consented to this follow-up study and completed the surveys (n = 23 and 16, respectively). The SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary scores were below normal population means but were similar in 1.5 kcal/ml and 1.0 kcal/ml groups (P=0.90 and P=0.71). EuroQol-5D-5L data were also comparable between groups (P=0.70). However, at one-year follow-up, more patients who received 1.5 kcal/ml were employed (7 versus 2; P=0.022). The delivery of 1.5 kcal/ml for a maximum of ten days did not affect self-rated quality of life one year later.

Continuing development of an oral health score for clinical audit.

AIM: To compare the outcomes of a contemporary oral health status (OHS) scoring system with national oral health data from the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey, and to explore the utility of the OHS in audit and service development. METHODS: An OHS scoring system was developed as part of a previously reported comprehensive on-line patient assessment tool. The assessment tool also measured future disease risk and indicative capitation fee grading. The modified OHS score component was developed over 20 years of research and experience from the original Oral Health Index (Burke and Wilson 1995). The online tool was piloted by 25 volunteer dentists on 640 recall patients and qualitative and quantitative feedback provided. Anonymised data from the inputs and scores generated were collected centrally and analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The modified OHS was reported to have good validity by the pilot group. Submitted data confirmed a mean age for the recall patients examined as 53 ± 15.8 years and an average oral health status score of 79.5 ± 10.8 where a score of 100 equates to perfect oral health. A breakdown of the scores into the eight principal components provided evidence of cross validation with the Adult Dental Health Survey (2009). CONCLUSIONS: Scoring oral health status electronically offers valuable opportunities for clinical audit. The reported benchmark oral health score of 79.5 for recall patients can be updated as increased numbers of patients enter the centralised data recording system. Audit can be facilitated by this move from a paper-based system to an on-line tool with central data collection.