Cue-based versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding: the Cubs mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents' educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders' views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. SETTING: Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit). PARTICIPANTS: Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study). INTERVENTION: An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the 'Our Feeding Journey' document. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. RESULTS: The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study. LIMITATIONS: The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise. FUTURE WORK: The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Preterm babies who are ready to progress from tube feeding to oral feeding are usually fed according to a fixed schedule. Scheduled feeding protocols set a minimum corrected gestational age at which oral feeding may commence, and specify the rate of change from tube to oral feeding. Scheduled feeding also sets the volume and timing of each feed. A few small studies show that feeding babies according to their cues might have benefits for them and their parents; for example, babies may be discharged from hospital sooner. Cue-based feeding may help parents to understand the needs of their baby and be more involved in their care. Examples of hunger cues are mouthing movements, bringing hands to mouth and sucking. Examples of stop cues are falling asleep and stopping sucking. We developed a cue-based feeding intervention and tested it in three neonatal units to see if a large trial could be done and if parents and staff liked the intervention. We reviewed previous research, visited three hospitals that use cue-based feeding and interviewed parents and staff about their experiences of feeding preterm babies. We developed the intervention with parents and staff. The intervention included a feeding protocol, training for parents and staff, and a feeding record. Parents and staff liked most parts of the intervention. The training did not reach all staff, and staff and parents found it time-consuming to record every feed. Many parents and staff thought that cue-based feeding was better for babies, and parents thought that neonatal units should change to cue-based feeding. We discussed our findings with parents, staff and research experts. Based on their ideas, we recommend that the intervention is developed into an app (application) and that all neonatal units in the UK are surveyed to find out if they use cue-based feeding and if they would agree to be part of a large trial.

Ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding versus scheduled interval feeding for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Scheduled interval feeding of prescribed enteral volumes is current standard practice for preterm infants. However, feeding preterm infants in response to their hunger and satiation cues (ad libitum or demand/semi demand) rather than at scheduled intervals might help in the establishment of independent oral feeding, increase nutrient intake and growth rates, and allow earlier hospital discharge. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding prescribed volumes at scheduled intervals on growth rates and the time to hospital discharge. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to Oct 2009), EMBASE (1980 to Oct 2009), CINAHL (1982 to Oct 2009), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cluster randomised trials) that compared a policy of feeding preterm infants on an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand basis versus feeding at scheduled intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: We found eight randomised controlled trials that compared ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens with scheduled interval regimes in preterm infants in the transition phase from intragastric tube to oral feeding. The trials were generally small and of variable methodological quality. The duration of the intervention and the duration of data collection and follow-up in most of the trials was not likely to have allowed detection of measurable effects on growth. Three trials reported that feeding preterm infants using an ad libitum or demand/semi-demand feeding regimen allowed earlier discharge from hospital (by about two to four days) but other trials did not confirm this finding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence exists that feeding preterm infants with ad libitum or demand/semi-demand regimens allows earlier attainment of full oral feeding and earlier hospital discharge. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological weaknesses in the included trials. A large randomised controlled trial is needed to confirm this finding and to determine if ad libitum of demand/semi-demand feeding of preterm infants affects other clinically important outcomes.

Nineteenth century handmaids or twenty-first century partners?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to consider the processes influencing the nature of the relationship between hospital medical and nursing staff. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Posits the question "how far has this relationship come?" since the influential Briggs Report of the 1970s declared that the nineteenth-century handmaid model remained a powerful concept. To address whether this still holds true, a series of potentially influencing factors are explored. These include the differing historical development of medicine and nursing. Also how the relative roles, of nursing in particular, are changing and the effects of the external policy and political influences at play. Gender issues are considered, with particular regard to how care is conceptualised, and not least the contribution to relations by doctors and nurses themselves are explored. FINDINGS: The paper discusses how three doctor-nurse relationship models have attempted to account for the way these two groups interact. A fourth perspective is put forward as a potentially revealing way of viewing group relations, taking from the social psychology-based theory of social identification. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper maintains that a frank and open discussion of the problems that may be encountered in developing the doctor-nurse relationship is a vitally important ingredient for modern health care. By employing a polemic style the key aim of this paper is to stimulate debate between the relevant parties in this area and to attempt to highlight some of the less obvious factors that may represent tangible barriers to effective partnership.