Adding mini meals to a nasogastric refeeding protocol for patients with eating disorders can be achieved on general hospital wards.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of medically compromised patients with eating disorders is difficult in general hospital wards. There is currently no consensus on the best feeding method; however, previous research has demonstrated the safety of using enteral feeding. Because an oral diet has benefits on psychological and behavioural pathways, concurrent feeding requires further investigation. The present study aimed to examine acceptability and safety of implementing mini meals to a previously nil-by-mouth 7-day enteral feeding protocol. METHODS: This was mixed methods research including a retrospective observational study and participant survey. Patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, between July 2020 and March 2021 were eligible. Eligible participants were provided mini meals from day 5. Type and quantity of meals consumed alongside clinical incident data were collected. The survey examined acceptability of mini meals. Descriptive statistics were used to interpret findings. Content analyses were conducted on survey responses. RESULTS: Sixty-four participants (95%, n = 57/60 female, 25.2 ± 8.9 years; 75%, n = 45/60 diagnosed with anorexia nervosa) were included. At least half of the participants consumed some or all of the mini meals at each meal period. No clinical incidents were reported. Twenty-six (50%, n = 26/52) surveys were returned. Half (54%, n = 14/26) agreed-strongly agreed that mini meals improved their experience. Eleven participants desired more choice in menu items. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that introducing mini meals into an enteral feeding protocol is acceptable and safe for patients with eating disorders. Participants reported benefits in returning to eating; however, some items on the menu require reconsideration to enable increased consumption.

Mealtime care and dietary intake in older psychiatric hospital inpatient: A multiple case study.

AIMS: To investigate the energy and protein adequacy of meals and dietary intake of older psychiatric inpatients and describe patient and mealtime factors potentially influencing intake. DESIGN: Multiple case studies. METHODS: Psychiatric inpatients aged 65 years and older, admitted to a single mental health ward during the 6-week study period (April-May 2019) were eligible for inclusion. Dietary intake was observed for two consecutive days each week (minimum four observation days). Visual plate waste methods were used to estimate patients' dietary intake at mealtimes, with energy and protein intake calculated using known food composition data and compared with estimated requirements. Medical records were reviewed weekly to collect information on potential factors related to intake and mealtime care. Data from all sources were first summarized in a case record for within-case analysis using descriptive statistics, followed by cross-case analysis. RESULTS: Eight participants (five men, age 67-90 years, two underweight and one overweight, and four requiring some mealtime assistance) had 5-12 days of observation data recorded. Three met their estimated daily energy and protein requirements throughout the study period, while the remaining five participants did not. The main barriers identified as contributing to insufficient energy and protein intake were as follows: missing meals (asleep and treatment); inadequate food provided (insufficiency of the standard hospital menu); and need for increased mealtime assistance. CONCLUSION: Poor dietary intake may be common among older psychiatric patients, suggesting that they may also need nursing and multidisciplinary nutrition care interventions shown to effectively prevent and treat malnutrition in other older inpatient groups. IMPACT: Older psychiatric patients experience similar nutrition and mealtime issues to other older inpatients. This study highlights the need for nurses and the multidisciplinary team to ensure patients order and receive adequate food, especially when they miss meals and that they receive proactive mealtime assistance.

Mealtimes matter: Measuring the hospital mealtime environment and care practices to identify opportunities for multidisciplinary improvement.

AIMS: Hospital inpatients often eat poorly and report barriers related to mealtime care. This study aimed to measure and describe the mealtime environment and care practices across 16 acute wards in a tertiary hospital to identify opportunities for improvement. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional audit was undertaken over a two-month period in 2021. A structured audit tool was used at one breakfast, lunch and dinner on each ward to observe the mealtime environment (competing priorities, lighting, tray table clutter) and care practices (positioning, tray within reach, mealtime assistance). Data were analysed descriptively (%, count), with analyses by meal period and ward to identify variation in practices. RESULTS: A total of 892 observations were completed. Competing priorities (59%), poor lighting (43%) and cluttered tray tables (41%) were common. Mealtime assistance was required by 300 patients (33.6%; 5.9% eating assistance, 27.7% set-up assistance) and was provided within 10 min for 203 (66.7%) patients. A total of 54 patients (18.0%) did not receive the required assistance. We observed 447 (50.2%) patients lying in bed at meal delivery, with 188 patients (21.1%) sitting in a chair. Competing priorities, poor lighting, poor patient positioning and delayed assistance were worse at breakfast. Mealtime environments and practices varied between wards. CONCLUSION: This audit demonstrates opportunities to improve mealtimes in our hospital. Variation between wards and meal periods suggest that improvements need to be tailored to the ward-specific barriers and enablers. Dietitians are ideally placed to lead a collaborative approach alongside the wider multidisciplinary team to improve mealtime care and optimise intake.

Use and safety of enteral nutrition protocols in acute care: A scoping review of literature and retrospective audit of practice.

AIM: Standardised enteral nutrition protocols are recommended in critical care, however their use and safety are not well described in other inpatient populations. This mixed methods study reports on the use and safety of enteral nutrition protocols for non-critically ill adults. METHODS: A scoping review of published literature was conducted. In addition a retrospective audit of practice at an Australian tertiary teaching hospital with an existing hospital-wide standardised enteral nutrition protocol was performed. Data on use, safety and adequacy of enteral nutrition prescription were collected from medical records for patients receiving enteral nutrition on acute wards (January-March 2020). RESULTS: Screening of 9298 records yielded six primary research articles. Studies were generally low quality. Published literature suggested that protocols may reduce time to enteral nutrition initiation and goal rate, and improve adequacy of nutrition provision. No adverse outcomes were reported. From the local audit of practice (105 admissions, 98 patients), enteral nutrition commencement was timely (median 0 (IQR 0-1) days from request; goal rate: median 1 (IQR 0-2) days from commencement and adequate (nil underfeeding), without prior dietitian review in 82% of cases. Enteral nutrition was commenced per protocol in 61% of instances. No adverse events, including refeeding syndrome, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most inpatients requiring enteral nutrition can be safely and adequately managed on enteral nutrition protocols. Evaluation of protocols outside of the critical care setting remains a gap in the literature. Standardised enteral nutrition protocols may improve delivery of nutrition to patients, whilst allowing dietitians to focus on those with specialised nutrition support needs.

Acceptability of using a nasogastric refeeding protocol with adult patients with medically unstable eating disorders.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Nasogastric feeding is becoming commonly used to support patients with medically compromised eating disorders. Previous research has demonstrated the safety of this approach, however there is limited evidence as to how adult patients and staff perceive this feeding method. This study aimed to describe the acceptability of a nasogastric refeeding protocol with adult patients with medically unstable eating disorders and the staff involved in their treatment. METHOD: This was a qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews conducted in acute medical wards of a tertiary hospital where nasogastric nutrition is the sole source of nutrition for the first 7 days of the eating disorder admission. Data were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Eight patients (100% female, median: 22 years old, n = 6 diagnosed with anorexia nervosa) and 12 staff members (medical n = 5, nursing n = 5, dietitians n = 2; median: 8.5 years clinical experience) were interviewed. Patients reported that nasogastric feeding was tolerable, however concerns were raised regarding communication and the desire for concurrent oral feeding. Acceptability from staff was influenced by perceived competence, confidence, tensions around patient-centred care, and working with stigma and ambivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration needs to be given as to whether a 'nil by mouth' status during nasogastric feeding further impacts recommencing an oral diet to progress treatment. Improvements are required within the current service, including improved communication, additional educational resources for patients, and allowing patients to partake in decision-making as able.

Systematic Review of Energy Initiation Rates and Refeeding Syndrome Outcomes.

The limited, low-level evidence available on refeeding syndrome (RFS) is likely a result of there being no universally accepted definition of RFS. Cautious feeding is typically recommended to prevent RFS-related adverse outcomes; however, these recommendations are outdated. This systematic review aimed to summarize the RFS literature, describe feeding methods used, and determine whether higher or lower energy rates at commencement of feeding were associated with RFS or RFS-related adverse outcomes. Databases were searched for interventional and observational studies examining feeding and RFS-related adverse events in adult patients. Data extracted included study design, participant descriptions, energy intake, and incidence of RFS-related adverse outcomes. Studies were compared based on assertive (>20 kcal/kg/d) or conservative (≤20 kcal/kg/d) feeding initiation rates. Of 2803 abstracts, 24 studies were included (1 randomized control trial, 23 observational studies). Fifteen studies were classified as assertive. Feeding methods varied greatly, making interpretations difficult. Incidence of hypophosphatemia varied widely and was reported at rates of up to 74% for assertive studies and 72% for conservative studies. Similarly, diagnosed RFS was reported at rates of up to 20% for both types of studies. Time to achieve goal feeding rate appeared to have no influence on incidence of RFS-related adverse outcomes. No consensus was found regarding the best method of feeding, energy initiation, or the time to achieve goal feeding rate that minimizes risk of RFS. There is currently limited evidence to suggest that higher-energy feeding initiation rates have detrimental impacts on those at risk of RFS; however, further research is necessary.

Further evidence to throw caution to the wind: outcomes using an assertive approach to manage refeeding syndrome risk.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) can occur in severely malnourished or starved populations that are provided with rapid or unbalanced nutrition. International guidelines recommend a cautious approach for managing RFS risk (hypocaloric nutrition for 4-7 days), however emerging evidence supports a more assertive approach. This study aimed to describe nutritional management and RFS-related adverse outcomes in patients at risk of RFS receiving care after implementing updated guidelines reflecting emerging evidence. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of inpatients at risk of RFS during admission to a large metropolitan hospital in Queensland, Australia between November 2018 and April 2019 was conducted. Data were collected from medical records on nutritional management (provision of nutrition, electrolyte, and vitamin replacement) and outcomes (incidence of RFS, serum electrolyte decreases, hypo/hyperglycaemia, oedema, and organ function disturbance). Data were analysed descriptively; relationships between serum electrolyte decreases and nutrition management were explored using Fisher's Exact tests. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients identified at risk of RFS (58.4 ± 16.8 years, 56% male, 94% malnourished), majority of participants received required supplementation prior to the commencement of nutrition (thiamine: 76%; micronutrients: 72-100%; multivitamin: 61%) and a standard initial nutrition management plan (79%; cautious: 13%; liberal: 8%). There were no cases of RFS. Four participants experienced RFS-related adverse outcomes (severe electrolyte decreases: n = 2, hypo/hyperglycaemia: n = 2); however, there was no differences in serum electrolyte decreases based on the nutrition management plan (initial: p = 0.912; goal: p = 0.688). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of more liberal RFS guidelines for the management of RFS risk appears to be safe. Further research examining liberalised refeeding protocols may be useful in updating international guidelines.