Nutrition support use and clinical outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant.

PURPOSE: Malnutrition is associated with worse outcomes post-haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, with nutrition support recommended for people who are malnourished or have prolonged inadequate energy intake. We investigated associations between nutritional status, nutrition support type and clinical outcomes in adults with multiple myeloma post stem cell transplantation. METHODS: Medical records (2015-2020) were reviewed to retrieve demographics, anthropometry, dietary data, nutrition support type (enteral/oral versus parenteral), and clinical outcomes (engraftment time, infection, length of stay, weight changes). Relationships were examined using linear regression modelling and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen participants were included (61% male; median age 62 years). Fifteen participants (13%) received parenteral and 98 (87%) received enteral/oral nutrition support. Parenteral nutrition was associated with shorter platelet engraftment time by 2.7 days (p = 0.036) and a longer hospital stay by 6.1 days (p < 0.001). Nutrition support was not associated with neutrophil engraftment time (p = 0.365). Inadequate energy intake for ≥ 7 days was not associated with any clinical outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received parenteral nutrition reached platelet engraftment sooner but were in hospital longer. Inadequate energy intake for ≥ 7 days did not impact clinical outcomes. Multi-site prospective studies are warranted to confirm results.

Introducing novel advanced practice roles into the health workforce: Dietitians leading in gastrostomy management.

AIM: The number of advanced practice roles in the Australian health-care system is growing alongside contemporary health-care reforms. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of introducing novel advanced practice dietitian roles in gastrostomy tube (g-tube) management and develop a competency framework for progressing opportunities in dietetics practice and policy. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to service lead dietitians at six participating health-care networks at the completion of a dedicated advanced practice funding grant, and at 12-month follow up. Service changes (e.g. number of dietitians credentialed, service and adverse events, change in patient waiting times and staff satisfaction), enablers and barriers for the implementation of the novel roles (including pre-, during, and post-implementation), and clinical costing estimates to measure the financial impact on the health system were investigated. Participant feedback was also used to synthesise the development of an advanced scope of practice pathway to competency. RESULTS: Responses were received from all participating health-care networks. Five out of six sites successfully implemented an advanced practice role in g-tube management, with conservative health system savings estimated at $185 000. Ten dietitians were credentialed, with a further seven trainees in progress. Over 200 service events were recorded, including those diverted from other health professionals. Enabling factors for successful introduction included strong executive and stakeholder support, resources provided by grant funding, and established credentialing governance committees. Barriers included recruitment and governance processes. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist for further expansion of advanced and extended practice roles for dietitians to meet future health-care demands.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of foodservice interventions and their effect on nutritional outcomes and satisfaction of adult oncology patients.

AIM: An understanding of effective foodservice interventions on nutrition outcomes in adult patients with cancer is required to support clinical decision making. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of foodservice interventions across a range of nutritional outcomes and satisfaction of hospitalised and ambulatory adult oncology patients. METHODS: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016045772). Six databases were searched using search terms associated with the intervention and population. No date or language restrictions were applied. Authors applied the inclusion criteria to titles and abstracts and then full-text papers. The final library was assessed for risk of bias. Outcome data were combined narratively and, where possible, by meta-analysis. RESULTS: From the title and abstract review of 4414 studies, 12 studies testing the effect of foodservice interventions were included in this review. Meta-analyses demonstrated significantly greater energy (mean difference 1.54 MJ/day; 95% CI 0.85-2.23 MJ/day) and protein (mean difference 18.98 g/day; 95% CI 11.58-26.39 g/day) intake through the addition of oral nutrition supplements. Other positive effects on anthropometric outcomes were also recorded. Patient satisfaction was enhanced through other foodservice interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Limited original research was found exploring the effect of foodservice interventions in oncology patients. Significant findings were found in favour of the intervention across a range of nutritional outcomes, suggesting that foodservice interventions may improve clinical outcomes and satisfaction in this population. Effective foodservice interventions for oncology patients remain under-researched, so we encourage dietitians and foodservice staff to implement rigorous study designs to evaluate and publish interventions in this clinical group.

A pilot study investigating dietetic weight loss interventions and 12 month functional outcomes of patients undergoing total joint replacement.

We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of a dietetic intervention to usual care, in 40 individuals with a body mass index >30kg/m(2) undergoing total joint replacement (TJR). The dietetic weight loss intervention comprised at least four sessions with an Accredited Practising Dietitian. At 12 months, the usual care group gained weight, +2.01kg (6.45), whereas the treatment group lost weight, -3.38kg (6.62), (p=0.015). Percentage weight change in the treatment group was -3.20% (5.24), compared to +1.67% (6.16) for the usual care group (p=0.015) and more participants in the intervention group (45%) lost ≥5% of their baseline weight (13%), (p=0.057). Physical health scores were also better for the intervention group [42.2 (11.80); 32.86 (9.91), p=0.014]. Findings suggest that a structured dietitian-led weight loss intervention in patients undergoing TJR is more effective in achieving weight loss than usual care, and can result in improved physical health scores at 12 months post-TJR.