Characteristics Associated with Relationship-Centred and Task-Focused Mealtime Practices in Older Adult Care Settings.

Purpose: To assess care home and staff characteristics associated with task-focused (TF) and relationship-centred care (RCC) mealtime practices prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Staff working in Canadian and American care homes were invited to complete a 23-item online survey assessing their perceptions of mealtime care, with one item assessing 26 potential care practices from the Mealtime Relational Care Checklist (relationship-centred = 15; task-focused = 11) reported to occur in the home prior to the pandemic. Multivariate linear regression evaluated staff and care home characteristics associated with mealtime practices.Results: Six hundred and eighty-six respondents completed all questions used in this analysis. Mean TF and RCC mealtime practices were 4.89 ± 1.99 and 9.69 ± 2.96, respectively. Staff age was associated with TF and RCC practices with those 40-55 years reporting fewer TF and those 18-39 years reporting fewer RCC practices. Those providing direct care were more likely to report TF practices. Dissatisfaction with mealtimes was associated with more TF and fewer RCC practices. Homes that were not making changes to promote RCC pre-pandemic had more TF and fewer RCC practices. Newer care homes were associated with more RCC, while small homes (≤49 beds) had more TF practices.Conclusions: Mealtime practices are associated with staff and home factors. These factors should be considered in efforts to improve RCC practices in Canadian homes.

"Nobody But a Family Member Can Do It Quite the Same Way": Understanding the Meaning of Mealtimes to Residents and Families in Long-Term Care Homes During the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Meals in long-term care (LTC) are essential to residents not only for nutrition and their physical well-being but also for their social interactions supporting resident quality of life. This study aims to understand the mealtime experiences of residents and family care partners during the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic when restrictions were put in place in LTC and retirement homes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Interpretive description analysis of qualitative interviews in LTC and retirement homes, with 17 family care partners and 4 residents. Convenience and snowball sampling was used to recruit participants for telephone interviews. RESULTS: Three themes were generated. Compromised mealtimes mean compromising community-meals were seen by participants as a key social and community-building event of the home; they reported this loss of community with pandemic restrictions. Participants noted that family care partners are indispensable at meals for social, psychological, and physical support. The dangers of eating alone spoke to the social isolation reported by participants that occurred during the pandemic and the risks they described of eating alone. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the importance of mealtimes in LTC and retirement homes to community building and extends our understanding of the importance of family inclusion at meals and why eating alone, as happened during COVID-19, was so detrimental to residents. Effort needs to be made to value this communal activity for the well-being of residents.

Nutrition risk and cognitive performance in community-living older adults without cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.

Malnutrition is correlated with poor cognition; however, an understanding of the association between nutrition risk, which precedes malnutrition, and cognition is lacking. This study aimed to determine if nutrition risk measured with the SCREEN-8 tool is associated with cognitive performance among cognitively healthy adults aged 55+, after adjusting for demographic and lifestyle covariates. Sex- and age-stratified analyses were also explored. Baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging was used. Cognition was determined using a 6-measure composite score based on four executive functions and two memory tasks, taking into account age, sex, and education. Multivariable linear regression was performed while adjusting for body mass index (BMI), lifestyle, and health covariates in the entire sample (n = 11 378) and then stratified by sex and age. Approximately half of participants were female (54.5%) aged 65+ (54.1%). Greater nutrition risk was associated with poorer cognitive performance in the entire sample (F[1, 11 368] = 5.36, p = 0.021) and among participants aged 55-64 (n = 5227; F[1, 5217] = 5.45, p = 0.020). Sex differences in lifestyle and health factors associated with cognition were apparent, but nutrition risk was not associated with cognition in sex-stratified models. Based on this analysis, there may be an association between nutrition risk and cognitive performance in older adults. When screening for either cognitive impairment or nutrition risk, complementary assessments for these conditions is warranted, as early intervention may provide benefit.

Determinants of a decline in a nutrition risk measure differ by baseline high nutrition risk status: targeting nutrition risk screening for frailty prevention in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA).

OBJECTIVES: Nutrition risk is a key component of frailty and screening, and treatment of nutrition risk is part of frailty management. This study identified the determinants of a 3-year decline in nutrition risk (measured by SCREEN-8) for older adults stratified by risk status at baseline. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the comprehensive cohort sample of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) (n = 5031) with complete data for covariates at baseline and 3-year follow-up. Using a conceptual model to define covariates, determinants of a change in nutrition risk score as measured by SCREEN-8 (lower score indicates greater risk) were identified for those not at risk at baseline and those at high risk at baseline using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Models stratified by baseline nutrition risk were significant. Notable factors associated with a decrease in SCREEN-8 for those not at risk at baseline were mental health diagnoses (- 0.83; CI [- 1.44, -0.22]), living alone at follow-up (- 1.98; CI [- 3.40, -0.56]), and lack of dental care at both timepoints (- 0.91; CI [- 1.62, -0.20]) and at follow-up only (- 1.32; CI [- 2.45, -0.19]). For those at high nutrition risk at baseline, decline in activities of daily living (- 2.56; CI [- 4.36, -0.77]) and low chair-rise scores (- 1.98; CI [- 3.33, - 0.63]) were associated with lower SCREEN-8 scores at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Determinants of change in SCREEN-8 scores are different for those with no risk and those who are already at high risk, suggesting targeted approaches are needed for screening and treatment of nutrition risk in primary care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le risque nutritionnel est l'un des principaux éléments de la fragilité et le dépistage, et le traitement du risque nutritionnel font partie de la prise en charge de la fragilité. Dans cette étude, nous avons cerné les déterminants du risque de déclin nutritionnel sur 3 ans chez les personnes âgées (mesuré par l'instrument SCREEN-8 ­ Seniors in the Community Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition), stratifiés selon l'état de risque au départ. MéTHODE: Nous avons analysé les données secondaires d'un échantillon de la cohorte globale de l'Étude longitudinale canadienne sur le vieillissement (ELCV) (n = 5 031) avec des données complètes pour les covariables au départ et au suivi après 3 ans. En utilisant un modèle théorique pour définir les covariables, nous avons cerné les déterminants d'un changement du score de risque nutritionnel tel que mesuré par l'instrument SCREEN-8 (un faible score indiquant un risque élevé) pour les personnes qui n'étaient pas à risque au départ et pour celles qui étaient à risque élevé au départ, en faisant appel à la régression multivariée. RéSULTATS: Les modèles stratifiés selon le risque nutritionnel au départ étaient significatifs. Les facteurs notables associés à la baisse du score SCREEN-8 chez les personnes qui n'étaient pas à risque au départ étaient les diagnostics de santé mentale (-0,83; IC[-1,44, -0,22]), le fait de vivre seul au suivi (-1,98; IC[-3,40, -0,56]) et l'absence de soins dentaires au départ et au suivi (-0,91; IC[-1,62, -0,20]) ou seulement au suivi (-1,32; IC[-2,45, -0,19]). Chez les personnes ayant un risque nutritionnel élevé au départ, la baisse des activités dans la vie quotidienne (-2,56; IC[-4,36, -0,77]) et un faible score pour se lever d'une chaise (-1,98; IC[-3,33, -0,63]) étaient associés à la baisse du score SCREEN-8 au suivi. CONCLUSION: Les déterminants d'un changement du score SCREEN-8 sont différents chez les personnes qui ne sont pas à risque au départ et chez celles qui sont déjà à risque élevé, ce qui indique que des approches ciblées sont nécessaires pour le dépistage et le traitement du risque nutritionnel dans les soins primaires.

The Evidence for Screening Older Adults for Nutrition Risk in Primary Care: An Umbrella Review.

It is not known if nutrition risk screening of older adults should be a standard practice in primary care. The evidence in support of nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care was examined and critically analyzed using an umbrella review. The peer reviewed and grey literature were searched for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and systematic reviews (SRs). Titles and abstracts were independently screened by the two authors. Resources were excluded if they did not apply to older adults, did not discuss nutrition/malnutrition risk screening, or were in settings other than primary care. Full texts were independently screened by both authors, resulting in the identification of six CPGs and three SRs that met the review criteria. Guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool and SRs with the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality of the CPGs was high, while the quality of the SRs was low. The CPGs and SRs acknowledged a lack of high-quality research on the benefits of regular nutrition risk screening for older adults in primary care; however, CPGs recommended annual screening for older adults in primary care practices or other community settings. High-quality research investigating nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care is needed.

The Hospital Food Experience Questionnaire Predicts Adult Patient Food Intake.

Purpose: Describe food/beverage intake among all patients and those with low meal intake and determine if the Hospital Food Experience Questionnaire (HFEQ), or its shorter version (HFEQ-sv), predicts food intake while considering patient (e.g., gender) and hospital characteristics (e.g., foodservice model).Methods: Cross-sectional study of 1087 adult patients from 16 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. The valid and reliable HFEQ assessed patients' meal quality perceptions. Visual estimation determined overall meal and food/beverage intake using the Comstock method. Binary logistic regressions tested the association between patient and hospital characteristics and whether HFEQ or HFEQ-sv scores added utility in predicting overall meal intake (≤50% vs. ≥75%).Results: Approximately 29% of patients consumed ≤50% of their meal. Models assessing patient and hospital characteristics and either the HFEQ or the HFEQ-sv were significant (LRT(43) = 72.25, P = 0.003; LRT(43) = 93.46, P < 0.001). Men and higher HFEQ or HFEQ-sv scores demonstrated significantly higher odds of ≥75% meal consumption. Considering HFEQ or HFEQ-sv scores explained greater variance in meal intake and resulted in better model fits.Conclusions: The HFEQ and HFEQ-sv predict patient meal intake when adjusting for covariates and add utility in understanding meal intake. Either version can be confidently used to support menu planning and food delivery to promote food intake.

Putting quality food on the tray: Factors associated with patients' perceptions of the hospital food experience.

INTRODUCTION: Perceptions of hospital meal quality can influence patient food intake. Understanding what patients prioritise and what they think of current meals can support menu development. The present study assessed patients' food and food-related priorities for hospital meals and their sensory experience using the Hospital Food Experience Questionnaire (HFEQ). Factors independently associated with the HFEQ were determined. METHODS: Cross-sectional study (n = 1087 patients; 16 Ontario hospitals). Patients completed the HFEQ at a single meal. Descriptive statistics determined the importance of food traits and ratings of a served meal using 22 HFEQ questions (five-point Likert scales, total score 110). Bivariate and multivariable linear regression tested the association between patient and hospital characteristics and HFEQ score. RESULTS: Most food traits were rated as 'important' (4) or 'very important' (5) by two-thirds or more of patients. Patients typically rated served meal items as 'good' (4). Mean HFEQ score was 90.60 (SD 10.83) and was associated with patient and hospital traits in multivariable analyses (F42,556  = 2.34, p < 0.001). Older and woman-identifying patients were more likely to have a higher score. Foodservice models were associated with HFEQ. Cold-plated rethermed food resulted in the lowest HFEQ. Local food use > 10% was associated with lower HFEQ score, whereas larger hospitals had a higher score. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prioritised taste, freshness and food that met their dietary needs. Meal sensory ratings were average. A gap exists between what patients want in hospital meals and what they receive. Attention to patient demographics and food delivery that retains sensory properties and supports choice may increase HFEQ score.

Investigating the patient food experience: Understanding hospital staffs' perspectives on what leads to quality food provision in Ontario hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Food quality influences patient food satisfaction, which may subsequently affect food intake and recovery, influencing hospital costs. The present qualitative study aimed to gain an understanding of hospital staff/volunteers experiences of serving food in Ontario hospitals, perceptions of food quality and challenges to quality food provision. METHODS: Sixteen Ontario hospitals participated. Semi-structured interviews (n = 64 participants) and focus groups (n = 24; 150 participants) were conducted. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) Providing Good Quality Food (e.g., attributes that comprise the construct of meal quality, patients' expectations and desires from meals); (2) Individualising the Food and Mealtime Experience (e.g., processes to identify and cater to patients' needs and preferences); (3) Acknowledging Organisational Constraints (e.g., staffing, budget, etc.); and (4) Innovating Beyond Constraints (e.g., identifying innovation within potential modifiable and unmodifiable organisational constraints). CONCLUSIONS: Serving meals in hospital is complex because of organisational and patient factors; however, current efforts to serve quality food despite these complexities were uncovered in our investigation. Discussions highlighted current practices that promote food quality and strategies for improvement. Improving food quality and the hospital meal experience can support food intake and patient outcomes, as well as reduce waste and hospital associated costs. The findings can be used to support quality improvement measures aiming to serve high quality food that meets patients' expectations and nutritional needs.

Hospital Food Experience Questionnaire (HFEQ): Reliable, valid and predicts food intake in adult patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low food intake is a primary contributor to iatrogenic hospital malnutrition and can be influenced by perceptions of poor food quality. Valid and reliable tools to assess the food experience of hospital patients are lacking. This study aimed to determine the internal reliability, convergent construct and predictive validity of the new Hospital Food Experience Questionnaire (HFEQ) and to methodically derive and test a shortened version of the questionnaire (HFEQ-sv). METHODS: Data from a multi-site study on 1087 patients from 16 Ontario hospitals were used. The HFEQ was developed to assess the importance of food (n = 6) and food-related (n = 10) traits using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by "not important" (1) and "very important" (5), and ratings of a single meal served (n = 7) using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by "very poor" (1) and "very good" (5). Food intake at the same meal was assessed using visual estimation (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Internal reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha, and principal components analysis (PCA). Convergent validity was assessed using ordinal logistic regression with a single question on patients' overall meal quality rating. Cross validation was conducted in an attempt to shorten the questionnaire and binary logistic regression determined predictive validity with food intake. RESULTS: The HFEQ demonstrated good internal reliability (α = .86), and all but one of the questionnaire items clustered together in PCA, revealing 5 factors. Subscales and the total HFEQ demonstrated convergent validity, with the importance of food taste, choice, easy-to-open packaging, easy-to-eat food and local food provision, in addition to meal ratings of taste, appearance, texture, temperature and combination of food served being associated with the overall meal quality rating (p < .050). These items became the basis for the HFEQ-sv, which was found to independently predict food intake (LRT(42) = 142.17, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The HFEQ is internally reliable, demonstrates convergent validity with the construct of meal quality and predicts food intake. The 11-item HFEQ-sv promotes feasibility. The HFEQ has potential to be used globally to benchmark and quantify the patient food experience in hospital, contributing to quality improvement strategies that will support food intake among patients.

Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3): Association Between Relationship-Centered Care Practices, and Number of Staff and Residents at Mealtimes in Canadian Long-Term Care Homes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if (1) number of staff or residents, when considering home-level factors and presence of family/volunteers, are associated with relationship-centered care practices at mealtimes in general and dementia care units in long-term care (LTC); and (2) the association between number of staff and relationship-centered care is moderated by number of residents and family/volunteers, profit status or chain affiliation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Making the Most of Mealtimes (M3) cross-sectional multisite study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two Canadian LTC homes (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick) and 639 residents were recruited. Eighty-two units were included, with 58 being general and 24 being dementia care units. METHODS: Trained research coordinators completed the Mealtime Scan (MTS) for LTC at 4 to 6 mealtimes in each unit to determine number of staff, residents, and family or volunteers present. Relationship-centered care was assessed using the Mealtime Relational Care Checklist. The director of care or food services manager completed a home survey describing home sector and chain affiliation. Multivariable analyses were stratified by type of unit. RESULTS: In general care units, the number of residents was negatively (P = .009), and number of staff positively (P < .001) associated with relationship-centered care (F9,48 = 5.48, P < .001). For dementia care units, the associations were nonsignificant (F5,18 = 2.74, P = .05). The association between staffing and relationship-centered care was not moderated by any variables in either general or dementia care units. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Number of staff in general care units may increase relationship-centered care at mealtimes in LTC. Number of residents or staff did not significantly affect relationship-centered care in dementia care units, suggesting that other factors such as additional training may better explain relationship-centered care in these units. Mandating minimum staffing and additional training at the federal level should be considered to ensure that staff have the capacity to deliver relationship-centered care at mealtimes, which is considered a best practice.

Relationship-Centered Mealtime Training Program Demonstrates Efficacy to Improve the Dining Environment in Long-Term Care.

OBJECTIVES: Mealtimes in residential care tend to be task-focused rather than relationship-centered, impacting resident quality of life. CHOICE+ uses participatory approaches to make mealtimes more relationship-centered. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of the 12-month external-facilitated implementation of CHOICE+ to improve the mealtime environment. DESIGN: Modified stepped-wedge time series design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Dining rooms in 3 homes were entered into the intervention every 4 months; total study length was 20 months. Pre- and postintervention evaluations were attained from residents (n = 27, n = 19) and staff (n = 39, n = 29) respectively. METHODS: Five meals in each home were observed by a blinded trained assessor every 4 months using the Mealtime Scan+ to assess physical, social, and relationship-centered practices and overall quality of the dining environment. Repeated measures analysis determined change in mealtime environment scores. The Team member Mealtime Experience Questionnaire and 5 questions from the InterRAI Quality of Life Questionnaire for residents and family were administered at pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: There were significant increases in physical and social environments, relationship-centered care practices, and overall quality of the mealtime environment during the intervention period at all sites (all P < .001) and significant site by intervention interactions for physical (P = .01) and relationship-centered care (P = .03). Statistically significant site differences were noted for relationship-centered care practices (P < .001) and overall quality of the dining environment (P < .002). There was no significant difference in staff and resident/family pre-/postintervention questionnaire results. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The external facilitated model of CHOICE+ resulted in significant improvements in the mealtime environment. Although site context impacted implementation, this study demonstrates that mealtimes can be improved even in homes that have challenges. Future work should determine impact of these improvements on other outcomes such as resident quality of life, using more specific measures.