Optimizing the nutrition support care model: Analysis of survey data.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is underrecognized and underdiagnosed, despite high prevalence rates and associated poor clinical outcomes. The involvement of clinical nutrition experts, especially physicians, in the care of high-risk patients with malnutrition remains low despite evidence demonstrating lower complication rates with nutrition support team (NST) management. To facilitate solutions, a survey was designed to elucidate the nature of NSTs and physician involvement and identify needs for novel nutrition support care models. METHODS: This survey assessed demographics of NSTs, factors contributing to the success of NSTs, elements of nutrition education, and other barriers to professional growth. RESULTS: Of 255 respondents, 235 complete surveys were analyzed. The geographic distribution of respondents correlated with population concentrations of the United States (r = 90.8%, p < .0001). Most responding physicians (46/57; 80.7%) reported being a member of NSTs, compared with 56.5% (88/156) of dietitians. Of those not practicing in NSTs (N = 81/235, 34.4%), 12.3% (10/81) reported an NST was previously present at their institution but had been disbanded. Regarding NSTs, financial concerns were common (115/235; 48.9%), followed by leadership (72/235; 30.6%), and healthcare professional (HCP) interest (55/235; 23.4%). A majority (173/235; 73.6%) of all respondents wanted additional training in nutrition but reported insufficient protected time, ability to travel, or support from administrators or other HCPs. CONCLUSION: Core actions resulting from this survey focused on formalizing physician roles, increasing interdisciplinary nutrition support expertise, utilizing cost-effective screening for malnutrition, and implementing intervention protocols. Additional actions included increasing funding for clinical practice, education, and research, all within an expanded portfolio of pragmatic nutrition support care models.

The relationship between learner engagement and teaching effectiveness: a novel assessment of student engagement in continuing medical education.

BACKGROUND: Continuing medical education (CME) often uses passive educational models including lectures. However, numerous studies have questioned the effectiveness of these less engaging educational strategies. Studies outside of CME suggest that engaged learning is associated with improved educational outcomes. However, measuring participants' engagement can be challenging. We developed and determined the validity evidence for a novel instrument to assess learner engagement in CME. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional validation study at a large, didactic-style CME conference. Content validity evidence was established through review of literature and previously published engagement scales and conceptual frameworks on engagement, along with an iterative process involving experts in the field, to develop an eight-item Learner Engagement Instrument (LEI). Response process validity was established by vetting LEI items on item clarity and perceived meaning prior to implementation, as well as using a well-developed online platform with clear instructions. Internal structure validity evidence was based on factor analysis and calculating internal consistency reliability. Relations to other variables validity evidence was determined by examining associations between LEI and previously validated CME Teaching Effectiveness (CMETE) instrument scores. Following each presentation, all participants were invited to complete the LEI and the CMETE. RESULTS: 51 out of 206 participants completed the LEI and CMETE (response rate 25%) Correlations between the LEI and the CMETE overall scores were strong (r = 0.80). Internal consistency reliability for the LEI was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.96). To support validity to internal structure, a factor analysis was performed and revealed a two dimensional instrument consisting of internal and external engagement domains. The internal consistency reliabilities were 0.96 for the internal engagement domain and 0.95 for the external engagement domain. CONCLUSION: Engagement, as measured by the LEI, is strongly related to teaching effectiveness. The LEI is supported by robust validity evidence including content, response process, internal structure, and relations to other variables. Given the relationship between learner engagement and teaching effectiveness, identifying more engaging and interactive methods for teaching in CME is recommended.

Premixed vs Compounded Parenteral Nutrition: Effects of Total Parenteral Nutrition Shortage on Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug shortages continue to impact our patients with intestinal failure and their ability to receive nutrition. ASPEN guidelines address the management of certain shortages in compounded total parenteral nutrition (TPN); however, some institutions have utilized premixed total parenteral nutrition (pTPN) in place of TPN. RECENT FINDINGS: Premixed TPN appears to be as safe, if not safer, as compounded TPN when comparing the risk of bloodstream infection. However, there is an increased use of supplemental electrolytes to meet patient needs. Cost-effectiveness depends on multiple factors and should be evaluated by each institution when considering the use of TPN. In light of the published information on the use of pTPN compared to TPN, institutions and nutrition clinicians should consider their current practice and opportunities to consider when pTPN may be beneficial for their patients, not only from a safety perspective, but also considering cost savings. However, close monitoring and individual patient needs should be considered as these formulas may not meet all patient nutritional and electrolyte needs.

Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition-From Hospital to Home: Will It Be Covered?

With scientific advances allowing for the safe delivery of parenteral and enteral nutrition in the home setting, challenges have risen with determining how this will be financially feasible for patients. In the United States, the government is one of the major payers for home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN). Thus, it is important for nutrition providers to have an understanding of the Medicare criteria that must be met in order for these services to be covered. It can be difficult for clinicians to sift through these requirements and decipher for whom and when HPEN is covered. As our nutrition science knowledge and delivery continue to grow and evolve, potential barriers to this coverage may arise. This article provides background on those currently on HPEN in the United States, the current Medicare HPEN coverage criteria, and challenges we may face in the future.