Protein Provision in Critically Ill Adults Requiring Enteral Nutrition: Are Guidelines Being Met?

BACKGROUND: In a previous audit, 81% of enteral protein prescriptions failed to meet protein guidelines. To address this, a very high-protein enteral formula and protein supplements were introduced, and protein prescriptions were adjusted to account for nonnutrition energy sources displacing enteral formula. This follow-up audit compared protein provision in critically ill adults requiring exclusive enteral nutrition (EN), first, with local and international guidelines, and second, after changes to practice, with the previous audit in the same intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Data were collected from 106 adults consecutively admitted to the ICU of a U.K. tertiary hospital and requiring exclusive EN ≥3 days. Protein targets based on local guidelines (1.25, 1.5, or 2.0 g/kg/d), nutrition prescription, and delivery were recorded for 24 hours between days 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, and 18-20 post-ICU admission. RESULTS: The proportion of day 1-3 protein prescriptions meeting protein targets increased from 19% in 2015 to 69% in 2017 (P < .0005, φ = 0.50). The median percentage of protein target delivered was lower than prescribed (79% vs 103%; (P < .0005; r = 0.53) and EN delivery only met the target of 22% of patients. The proportion of protein prescriptions meeting protein targets was similar for days 1-3 (69%), 5-7 (71%), and 8-10 (68%), but increased slightly by days 18-20 (74%). The proportion of patients for which EN delivery met protein targets increased with the number of days post-ICU admission (22%, 26%, 37%, and 53% for days 1-3, 5-7, 8-10, and 18-20, respectively). CONCLUSION: The proportion of protein prescriptions meeting guideline targets was higher after changes to practice.

Stroke: ineffective tube securement reduces nutrition and drug treatment.

Stroke patients with dysphagia often depend on nutrition, hydration and medication via nasogastric (NG) feeding tubes. Securing tubes using tape is associated with repeated tube loss. In this study, the authors determined cause and effect by auditing tube placement methods, delays incurred, duration and costs. Of 202 NG tube placements in 75 patients, 67 placements occurred in 17 patients over a full course of enteral nutrition (EN) and 40 of these placements were tracked. Tubes were secured by tape in 100%, mittens 31% and special observation 5.4%. However, over an EN course, inadvertent tube loss occurred in 82% of patients and was associated with age (p=0.049) and mitten use (p<0.001): 64% of tubes were lost due to patients and 9% slipped. Average 'tube life' was 2 days, less than 25% of the EN episode (p<0.001). While tube placement occurred within 2.55 hours of request, X-ray confirmation led to a delay in feed and drugs of 8-9 hours per tube placement and loss of 18.8% of feeding time per EN episode. Delays exceeded the 1-hour and 4-hour limits for antibiotics and other medicines in 20% and 80%, respectively. In the 17 tracked patients, it was estimated that 55% of the £5979 direct costs could be saved by nasal bridle use. In conclusion, most tubes studied were lost to inadvertent tube removal, leading to clinically significant delays to nutrition, hydration and drug treatments; this may impair recovery. Reducing tube loss is likely to reduce patient distress, treatment cost and enhance recovery.