RESUMEN
Many children with type 1 diabetes do not meet nutritional guidelines. Little is known about how caregivers perceive the necessity of registered dietitian (RD) visits or how satisfied they are with nutrition care. This study aimed to evaluate nutrition experiences and perceptions of care among caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes at an academic medical center. We analyzed 159 survey responses. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed factors associated with the perception of need for annual nutrition visits, satisfaction with RD care, and encouragement from a nurse or doctor to meet with an RD. Covariates included age (<13 vs. ≥13 years), type 1 diabetes duration (≤3 vs. >3 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring use. More than half of caregivers (56%) considered annual visits necessary. Shorter type 1 diabetes duration (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.02-3.63) was associated with this finding. Less than half (46.5%) reported satisfaction with nutrition care; higher satisfaction was also correlated with shorter type 1 diabetes duration (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.17-4.15). Although 42% reported meeting with an RD in the past year, less than two-thirds (62%) reported receiving a medical provider recommendation for nutrition care. Leading reasons for not meeting with an RD were "I am knowledgeable in nutrition and do not need to see an [RD]" (41%) and "I had a past visit with an [RD] that was not helpful" (40%). Our findings suggest that satisfaction with and perceived need for nutrition care may wane with longer type 1 diabetes duration. Improved strategies for therapeutic alliance between caregivers and RDs and engagement of families at later stages of type 1 diabetes are needed.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: Lack of provider (physicians and advanced practice providers) participation in fall risk assessment was theorized to be contributing to rising rates of falls with injury at our institution. This project sought to identify if attitudinal barriers to inpatient provider participation in fall risk assessment were similar to those identified in other clinical settings. Methods: Barriers to provider participation in fall risk assessment were identified in the literature. These were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) domains to assist with interpretation of the data. A 10-item survey using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) with two open-ended questions was developed using these barriers. The survey was distributed via email to all providers on the Medical Staff in July 2021. Results: The response rate was 9.1% (188/2062). 72.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65.6, 78.5) of providers at our institution did agree that fall risk assessment was within their role and 72% (95% CI: 66.1, 78.5) agreed that assessment can prevent falls. Nearly half felt that they lacked formal training in fall risk assessment (48.1% [95% CI: 41.1, 55.1]) and 52.2% (95% CI: 44.6, 58.6) agreed that other aspects of patient care took priority over falls assessment. These barriers correlated best with the TDF domains of Beliefs about Capabilities and Beliefs about Consequences. Conclusions: Survey results indicate that interventions focused on increasing provider motivation and capability regarding fall risk assessment and helping providers prioritize fall risk assessment are potential targets for future quality improvement projects.