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.

A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: parenteral nutrition ordering, order review, compounding, labeling, and dispensing.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a high-alert medication available for patient care within a complex clinical process. Beyond application of best practice recommendations to guide safe use and optimize clinical outcome, several issues are better addressed through evidence-based policies, procedures, and practices. This document provides evidence-based guidance for clinical practices involving PN prescribing, order review, and preparation. METHOD: A systematic review of the best available evidence was used by an expert work group to answer a series of questions about PN prescribing, order review, compounding, labeling, and dispensing. Concepts from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) format were applied as appropriate. The specific clinical guideline recommendations were developed using consensus prior to review and approval by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. The following questions were addressed: (1) Does education of prescribers improve PN ordering? (2) What is the maximum safe osmolarity of PN admixtures intended for peripheral vein administration? (3) What are the appropriate calcium intake and calcium-phosphate ratios in PN for optimal neonatal bone mineralization? (4) What are the clinical advantages or disadvantages of commercially available premade ("premixed") multichambered PN formulations compared with traditional/customized PN formulations? (5) What are the clinical (infection, catheter occlusion) advantages or disadvantages of 2-in-1 compared with 3-in-1 PN admixtures? (6) What macronutrient dosing limits are expected to provide for the most stable 3-in-1 admixtures? (7) What are the most appropriate recommendations for optimizing calcium (gluconate) and (Na- or K-) phosphate compatibility in PN admixtures? (8) What micronutrient contamination is present in parenteral stock solutions currently used to compound PN admixtures? (9) Is it safe to use the PN admixture as a vehicle for non-nutrient medication delivery? (10) Should heparin be included in the PN admixture to reduce the risk of central vein thrombosis? (11) What methods of repackaging intravenous fat emulsion (IVFE) into smaller patient-specific volumes are safe? (12) What beyond-use date should be used for (a) IVFE dispensed for separate infusion in the original container and (b) repackaged IVFE?

Nutritional considerations in institutionalized elders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to emphasize the importance of malnutrition in frail institutionalized elderly and discuss recent interventions that have been shown to decrease its prevalence. RECENT FINDINGS: A Medline search was conducted from 1968 to 2007 under the search terms aging, nutrition, and nursing homes. The most current reviews relevant to the care of institutionalized elders were selected for inclusion in this report. Recent reports have shown that application of screening protocols in long-tem care institutions improved nutritional status. A complete physical assessment, with special attention to the oral cavity, should be conducted. Monitoring of weight and intake should be part of the institutional routine, recognizing that there may be differences between prescribed diet and actual intake. Nutritional interventions should be tried as early as possible, including enhancement of environment and increasing staff to assist with feeding, as malnutrition in this population is associated with falls (particularly with deficient vitamin D) and increased morbidity and mortality. To optimally facilitate nutritional care of nursing home patients reforms are needed to facilitate optimal staffing in the institutional setting. SUMMARY: It is important to educate healthcare workers in the nursing home about simple interventions that could improve nutritional status.