Health service nutrition practices and associations with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing resection for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Results from the multi-centre NOURISH point prevalence study.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to investigate health service nutrition practices of sites providing care to patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer within Australia, including the provision of perioperative nutrition support services and outpatient clinics, as well as the use of evidence-based nutrition care pathways/protocols. Secondary aims were to investigate associations between the use of a nutrition care pathway/protocol and patient outcomes. METHODS: Principal investigator dietitians for the sites (n = 27) participating in the NOURISH point prevalence study participated in a purpose-built site-specific survey regarding perioperative nutrition practices and protocols. Data from the 200 patients who participated in the study (including malnutrition prevalence, preoperative weight loss and receipt of dietetics intervention, intraoperative feeding tube insertions, provision of nutrition support day 1 post surgery, length of stay, and complications) were investigated using multivariate analysis to determine associations with the sites' use of a nutrition care pathway/protocol. RESULTS: The majority of sites (>92%) reported having dietetics services available in chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Eighty-five percent of sites reported having some form of outpatient clinic service; however, a routine service was only available at 26% of sites preoperatively and 37% postoperatively. Most preoperative services were embedded into surgical/oncology clinics (70%); however, this was reported for only 44% of postoperative clinics. Only 44% had a nutrition care pathway/protocol in place. The use of a nutrition care pathway/protocol was associated with lower rates of malnutrition, as well as higher rates of preoperative dietetics intervention, intraoperative feeding tube insertions, and European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guideline compliant care day 1 post surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate varied perioperative outpatient nutrition services in this high-risk patient group. The use of nutrition care pathways and protocols was associated with improved patient outcomes.

Implementation of a standardised perioperative nutrition care pathway in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery: A multisite pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative nutrition support is recommended for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer surgery; however, limited evidence exists regarding implementation of a nutrition care pathway in clinical practice. The aims of this pilot study were to determine whether implementation of a standardised perioperative nutrition pathway for patients undergoing UGI cancer surgery improves access to dietetics care, as well as to evaluate study feasibility, fidelity, resource requirements and effect on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed UGI cancer from four major metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, planned for curative intent surgery, were included in the prospective pilot study (n = 35), with historical controls (n = 35) as standard care. Outcomes were dietetics care (dietetics contacts) nutritional status, hand grip strength, weight change, preoperative hospital admissions, complications and length of stay, recruitment feasibility, fidelity and adherence, and resource requirements. Continuous data were analysed using independent samples t test accounting for unequal variances or a Mann-Whitney U test. Dichotomous data were analysed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The percentage of participants receiving preoperative dietetic intervention increased from 55% to 100% (p < 0.001). Mean ± SD dietetics contacts increased from 2.2 ± 3.7 to 5.9 ± 3.9 (p < 0.001). Non-statistically significant decreases in preoperative nutrition-related hospital admissions, and surgical complications were demonstrated in patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Recruitment rate was 81%, and adherence to the nutrition pathway was high (> 70% for all stages of the pathway). The mean ± SD estimated resource requirement for the preoperative period was 3.7 ± 2.8 h per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this standardised nutrition pathway resulted in improved access to dietetics care. Recruitment feasibility and high fidelity to the intervention suggest that a larger study would be viable.

Does implementation of and adherence to enhanced recovery after surgery improve perioperative nutritional management in colorectal cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is independently associated with poor outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery including increased complications and length of stay (LOS). The purpose of this study was to identify changes to perioperative nutritional management and surgical outcomes post implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. METHODS: Data on LOS and adherence to the ERAS protocol, including preoperative fasting time, nutritional assessment and supplementation was prospectively collected for the pre-ERAS group who underwent surgery for CRC between February and August 2019. The post-ERAS group involved a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent surgery between October 2019 and July 2020. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were included, (Pre-ERAS n = 42, Post-ERAS n = 88). A reduction in time to first solid intake by 1 day (P = 0.010), time to first bowel action (P = 0.007) and incidence of nausea (P < 0.001) was seen in the post-ERAS group. Provision of postoperative oral supplements increased from 33.3% to 70.5% (P < 0.001) in the post-ERAS group. Thirteen post-ERAS patients had a ≥ 70% adherence to the ERAS protocol and this subgroup had an associated reduction in LOS, 6.5 (4) days to 5 (3), P = 0.020. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the ERAS protocol improved perioperative patient care and outcomes. Early feeding was associated with reduced gastrointestinal symptoms without an increase in complications. Adherence to ERAS was associated with a reduction in LOS. Further research is required to evaluate the role of preoperative nutritional screening and intervention within an ERAS protocol.

Implementing a standardised perioperative nutrition care pathway in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery: a mixed-methods analysis of implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Implementation studies of complex interventions such as nutrition care pathways are important to health services research, as they support translation of research into practice. There is limited research regarding implementation of a nutrition care pathway in an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer population. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the implementation process of a perioperative nutrition care pathway in UGI cancer surgery using The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: This was a mixed methods implementation study conducted during a pilot study of a standardised nutrition care pathway across four major hospitals between September 2018 to August 2019. Outcome measures included five focus groups among study dietitians (n = 4-8 per group), and quantitative satisfaction surveys from multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members (n = 14) and patients (n = 18). Focus group responses were analysed thematically using the CFIR constructs, which were used as a priori codes. Survey responses were summarised using means and standard deviations. A convergent parallel mixed methods approach according to CFIR domains and constructs was used to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: Qualitative data demonstrated that dietitian perceptions primarily aligned with five CFIR constructs (networks and communications, structural characteristics, adaptability, compatibility and patient needs/resources), indicating a complex clinical and implementation environment. Challenges to implementation mostly related to adapting the pathway, and the compatibility of nutrition coordination to existing aspects of care within each setting. Identified benefits from dietitian qualitative data and MDT survey responses included increased engagement between the dietitian and MDT, and a more proactive approach to nutrition care. Patients were highly satisfied with the service, with the majority of survey items being rated highly (≥4 of a possible 5 points). CONCLUSIONS: The nutrition care pathway was perceived to be beneficial by key stakeholders. Based on the findings, sustainability and compliance to this model of care may be achieved with improved systems level coordination and communication.

Ability of malnutrition screening and assessment tools to identify computed tomography defined low muscle mass in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition and low muscle mass are independently associated with poor outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). However, tools to identify low muscle mass are limited in the clinical setting. We investigated the ability of existing malnutrition screening and assessment tools to identify low muscle mass assessed by computed tomography (CT). Secondary aims were to determine the feasibility of CT analysis and handgrip strength (HGS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An exploratory study of patients who underwent curative surgery for CRC between February and September 2019. Nutrition tools used included body mass index (BMI), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Muscle mass was determined by preoperative CT image at the third lumbar vertebral level (L3), and muscle strength was determined by HGS dynamometry. Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare results of nutrition tools with CT muscle assessment. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were included. MST classified 18 patients (32%) as at risk of malnutrition, and PG-SGA classified 10 patients (17%) as malnourished. Fifty-one (90%) CT scans were analysable and 21 (47%) had low muscle mass. Of those with low muscle mass, PG-SGA classified 22 patients (92%) as well nourished and MST classified 17 patients (71%) as not being at nutrition risk. No tool was able to identify CT-diagnosed low muscle mass. Inability to complete HGS was associated with malnutrition (P = .001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, nutrition screening and assessment tools did not identify CT-diagnosed low muscle mass. Feasible tools to identify low muscle mass in the clinical setting are required.

Adherence to ESPEN guidelines and associations with postoperative outcomes in upper gastrointestinal cancer resection: results from the multi-centre NOURISH point prevalence study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nutrition support is an essential component of management in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resection, however there is limited knowledge of current clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the postoperative nutrition support received by patients undergoing UGI cancer resections, assess adherence with ESPEN surgical guideline recommendations, and to investigate differences between oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic surgeries. The secondary aim was to explore the association of adherence with ESPEN guidelines and provision of nutrition support, with surgical complications and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: The NOURISH point prevalence study was conducted between September 2019-June 2020 across 27 Australian tertiary centres. Malnutrition was diagnosed using subjective global assessment. Data on postoperative diet codes, prescription of nutrition support (oral (ONS), enteral (EN), parenteral (PN)) and nutritional adequacy were collected by dietitians for the first 10 days of admission. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in nutritional management and adherence to ESPEN guidelines between surgery types. Multivariate regression analysed associations with surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Two-hundred participants were included (42% pancreatic, 33% oesophageal, 25% gastric surgery). Overall, only 34.9% (n = 53) met the guideline recommendations that were applicable to them. Early oral intake of fluids or solids (within 24 h post surgery) was initiated for 23.5% (n = 47), whilst ONS/EN/PN was initiated for 49.5% (n = 99). Only 25% of pancreatic surgeries had nutrition support initiated on the first postoperative day compared to 86.4% of oesophageal and 42.0% of gastric surgeries (p < 0.001). In those who were 'nil by mouth', EN/PN were commenced within 24 h for 51.0% (n = 78), with 18.5% and 45.2% for pancreatic and gastric surgeries compared to 86.0% in oesophageal surgeries (p < 0.001). In malnourished patients, 35.7% (n = 30) commenced EN within 24 h, with 11.1% and 31.8% for pancreatic and gastric compared to 73.1% in oesophageal surgeries (p < 0.001). For patients meeting <60% energy/protein requirements for ≥7 days, only 14.8% (n = 9) received EN/PN, with 2.5% and 16.7% of pancreatic and gastric compared to 75.0% of oesophageal surgeries (p < 0.001). The number of days spent 'nil by mouth' or 'clear fluids' without EN/PN, as well as number of days with <60% estimated requirements met were independently associated with increased LOS and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was poor adherence to the majority of assessed ESPEN guidelines, and care for patients undergoing pancreatic and gastric surgeries was less compliant than oesophagectomy. Poor nutritional adequacy was associated with increased LOS and complications. There is a clear need for knowledge translation and implementation studies to increase adherence to evidence-based recommendations in the Australian setting supported by an understanding of barriers and enablers to optimal postoperative nutrition management.

Awareness and perceptions of nutrition support in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery: A national survey of multidisciplinary clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer are at high risk of malnutrition, and a multidisciplinary approach to management is recommended. This study aimed to determine practices, awareness and perceptions of multi-disciplinary clinicians with regards to malnutrition screening and provision of nutrition support. METHODS: A national survey of dietitians, surgeons, oncologists and nurses was conducted using a 30-item online REDCap survey, including questions regarding self-reported malnutrition screening/nutrition support practices, awareness and perceptions, and barriers and enablers. The survey was distributed via professional organisations/networks between 1st September and 30th November 2020. Results are presented as counts and percentages. RESULTS: There were 130 participants (56% dietitians, 25% surgeons, 11% nurses, 8% oncologists). The majority reported that dietitians and nurses performed malnutrition screening, and dietitians and surgeons prescribed nutrition support. Most participants reported that their health service had dietetics support available overall (98%), however only 41% reported having an outpatient service. Participants (>90%) demonstrated very high awareness of the significance of malnutrition and the importance of early nutrition support. Participants mostly perceived dietitians, nurses and surgeons to be responsible for malnutrition screening, whilst responsibility of prescription of nutrition support was mostly dietitians and surgeons. There were a higher number of barriers for the outpatient setting (48%) than the inpatient setting (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified a high awareness of the importance of identification and treatment of malnutrition in UGI cancer surgery. However reported practices varied and appear to be lacking in the outpatient setting, with significant barriers identified to providing optimal nutrition care.

Assessment of Nutritional Status and Nutrition Impact Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: Results from the Multi-Centre NOURISH Point Prevalence Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification and treatment of malnutrition are essential in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. However, there is limited understanding of the nutritional status of UGI cancer patients at the time of curative surgery. This prospective point prevalence study involving 27 Australian tertiary hospitals investigated nutritional status at the time of curative UGI cancer resection, as well as presence of preoperative nutrition impact symptoms, and associations with length of stay (LOS) and surgical complications. METHODS: Subjective global assessment, hand grip strength (HGS) and weight were performed within 7 days of admission. Data on preoperative weight changes, nutrition impact symptoms, and dietary intake were collected using a purpose-built data collection tool. Surgical LOS and complications were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were developed for nutritional status, unintentional weight loss, LOS and complications. RESULTS: This study included 200 patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic surgery. Malnutrition prevalence was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI) 35%, 49%), 49% lost ≥5% weight in 6 months, and 47% of those who completed HGS assessment had low muscle strength with no differences between surgical procedures (p = 0.864, p = 0.943, p = 0.075, respectively). The overall prevalence of reporting at least one preoperative nutrition impact symptom was 55%, with poor appetite (37%) and early satiety (23%) the most frequently reported. Age (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, 95% CI 1.5, 11.5, p = 0.008), unintentional weight loss of ≥5% in 6 months (OR 28.7, 95% CI 10.5, 78.6, p < 0.001), vomiting (OR 17.1, 95% CI 1.4, 207.8, 0.025), reduced food intake lasting 2-4 weeks (OR 7.4, 95% CI 1.3, 43.5, p = 0.026) and ≥1 month (OR 7.7, 95% CI 2.7, 22.0, p < 0.001) were independently associated with preoperative malnutrition. Factors independently associated with unintentional weight loss were poor appetite (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6, 8.4, p = 0.002) and degree of solid food reduction of <75% (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2, 9.2, p = 0.02) and <50% (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.5, 15.6, p = 0.008) of usual intake. Malnutrition (regression coefficient 3.6, 95% CI 0.1, 7.2, p = 0.048) and unintentional weight loss (regression coefficient 4.1, 95% CI 0.5, 7.6, p = 0.026) were independently associated with LOS, but no associations were found for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of preoperative nutritional intervention, a high proportion of patients present with malnutrition or clinically significant weight loss, which are associated with increased LOS. Factors associated with malnutrition and weight loss should be incorporated into routine preoperative screening. Further investigation is required of current practice for dietetics interventions received prior to UGI surgery and if this mitigates the impact on clinical outcomes.

Preoperative Nutrition Intervention in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: Results from the Multi-Centre NOURISH Point Prevalence Study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative nutrition intervention is recommended prior to upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resection; however, there is limited understanding of interventions received in current clinical practice. This study investigated type and frequency of preoperative dietetics intervention and nutrition support received and clinical and demographic factors associated with receipt of intervention. Associations between intervention and preoperative weight loss, surgical length of stay (LOS), and complications were also investigated. METHODS: The NOURISH Point Prevalence Study was conducted between September 2019 and May 2020 across 27 Australian tertiary centres. Subjective global assessment and weight were performed within 7 days of admission. Patients reported on preoperative dietetics and nutrition intervention, and surgical LOS and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Two-hundred patients participated (59% male, mean (standard deviation) age 67 (10)). Sixty percent had seen a dietitian preoperatively, whilst 50% were receiving nutrition support (92% oral nutrition support (ONS)). Patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were less likely to receive dietetics intervention and nutrition support than oesophageal or gastric surgeries (p < 0.001 and p = 0.029, respectively). Neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.003) and malnutrition (p = 0.046) remained independently associated with receiving dietetics intervention; however, 31.3% of malnourished patients had not seen a dietitian. Patients who received ≥3 dietetics appointments had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss at the 1-month preoperative timeframe compared with patients who received 0-2 appointments (1.2 (2.0) vs. 3.1 (3.3), p = 0.001). Patients who received ONS for >2 weeks had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss than those who did not (1.2 (1.8) vs. 2.9 (3.4), p = 0.001). In malnourished patients, total dietetics appointments ≥3 was independently associated with reduced surgical complications (odds ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 0.9, p = 0.04), and ONS >2 weeks was associated with reduced LOS (regression coefficient -7.3, 95% CI -14.3, -0.3, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations, there are low rates of preoperative dietetics consultation and nutrition support in this population, which are associated with increased preoperative weight loss and risk of increased LOS and complications in malnourished patients. The results of this study provide insights into evidence-practice gaps for improvement and data to support further research regarding optimal methods of preoperative nutrition support.

Patient understanding of and participation in infection-related care across surgical pathways: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the existing evidence on patient understanding of and/or participation in infection-related care in surgical specialties. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature was conducted. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and grey literature sources were searched using predefined search criteria for policies, guidelines, and studies in the English language. Data synthesis was done through content and thematic analysis to identify key themes in the included studies. RESULTS: The initial search identified 604 studies, of which 41 (36 from high-income and five from low- and middle-income countries) were included in the final review. Most of the included studies focused on measures to engage patients in infection prevention and control (IPC) activities, with few examples of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) engagement strategies. While patient engagement interventions in infection-related care varied depending on study goals, surgical wound management was the most common intervention. AMS engagement was primarily limited to needs assessment, without follow-up to address such needs. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence highlights a gap in patient participation in infection-related care in the surgical pathway. Standardization of patient engagement strategies is challenging, particularly in the context of surgery, where several factors influence how the patient can engage and retain information. Infection-related patient engagement and participation strategies in surgery need to be inclusive and contextually fit.

Malnutrition screening tools in gastrointestinal cancer: A systematic review of concurrent validity.

OBJECTIVE: Malnutrition is a significant problem in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, and accurate screening and identification is essential to ensure appropriate nutrition intervention. This study aims to determine current evidence for concurrent validity of malnutrition screening tools in GI cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines, using four databases. Studies investigating the concurrent validity of malnutrition screening tools against a reference standard of Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) or Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in adult patients with GI cancer were identified. Screening, quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Concurrent validity ratings were applied using predefined criteria. RESULTS: Six studies investigating concurrent validity of the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 criteria (NRS-2002) were included. There was variation in concurrent validity ratings ranging from poor-good for all tools, depending on treatment type, stage and population characteristics. CONCLUSION: Recommendations regarding the use of one tool over another could not be made. However, in the absence of a clear recommendation specific to GI cancer, screening tools that are well validated in general clinical populations should be utilised. The MST can be recommended based on validity data against the PG-SGA and SGA from other oncology populations. If indicated, malnutrition screening should then be followed by thorough nutritional assessment.

Nutritional Outcomes of patients Undergoing Resection for upper gastroIntestinal cancer in AuStralian Hospitals (NOURISH): protocol for a multicentre point prevalence study.

INTRODUCTION: Nutritional intervention and prevention of malnutrition is significantly important for patients with upper gastrointestinal oesophageal, pancreatic and gastric cancer. However, there is limited information regarding nutritional status, and perioperative nutritional interventions that patients receive when undergoing curative surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal cancer, planned for curative intent resection across 27 Australian hospitals will be eligible to participate in this point prevalence study. The primary aim is to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer at the time of surgery using subjective global assessment. Secondary aims are to determine the type and frequency of perioperative nutritional intervention received, the prevalence of clinically important weight loss and low muscle strength, and to investigate associations between the use of an evidence-based nutrition care pathway or protocol for the nutritional management of upper gastrointestinal surgical oncology patients and malnutrition prevalence. Data collection will be completed using a purpose-built data collection tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted in May 2019 (LNR/51107/PMCC-2019). The design and reporting of this study comply with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for reporting of observational cohort studies. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and presented at relevant conferences. Results will assist in defining priority areas for research to improve patient outcomes.

A systematic review of the effect of preoperative nutrition support on nutritional status and treatment outcomes in upper gastrointestinal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is highly prevalent in patients with Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer and is associated with poor outcomes. However, there are no evidence-based guidelines for nutrition support specific to UGI cancer surgery. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched. Abstracts of studies investigating the effect of preoperative nutrition support on nutritional status, functional status, body composition, quality of life and treatment outcomes in adult patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric or pancreatic cancer resection were identified. Screening of studies, quality assessment using the Downs and Black checklist, data extraction, and appraisal of evidence using GRADE were performed by two reviewers. Due to heterogeneity of the studies, results were synthesised narratively. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018111930). RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 442 oesophageal and 418 gastric patients were included. Individualised dietary counselling, and enteral feeding in neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer demonstrated positive effects for weight maintenance and surgical complications, however the GRADE evidence quality was very low. Preoperative nutrition support in gastric cancer decreased the incidence of surgical site infections, length of stay and hospital costs, but GRADE assessment was unable to be completed due to only one study reporting on each outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the lack of strong evidence to determine the most optimal methods of nutrition support prior to UGI cancer resection. Current surgical oncology guidelines should be utilised until further research from high quality trials enable the development of specific clinical practice guidelines.