Expert design thinking workshops to analyze users' perceived applicability of NUTRI-ONCOCARE algorithm to prevent and treat malnutrition in cancer patients under routine clinical practice conditions in Spain: the ALLIANCE study.

PURPOSE: NUTRI-ONCOCARE algorithm has been developed to identify and treat patients with solid tumors who are at risk of malnutrition. The present study is aimed at analyzing users' opinion about this new tool and at assessing whether it is perceived as useful to achieve the behavioral change required for a successful integration of nutritional assessment into routine cancer care. METHODS: Design thinking Double Diamond process was applied. A multidisciplinary team composed of ten potential end-users (four oncologists, three endocrinologists, one nutritionist, and two hospital pharmacists) participated in three different workshops aiming to analyze the different tasks included within the NUTRI-ONCOCARE algorithm. RESULTS: Users agreed on the need to perform nutritional assessment around cancer diagnosis and through the course of the disease using standardized tools included in hospital nutritional protocols and involving healthcare professionals with nutrition expertise. Nutritional evaluation and intervention should be individual and comprehensive, considering not only nutritional parameters but also patients' functional status. According to participants' opinion, the implementation of nutritional screening in routine clinical practice is limited by the lack of time and staff to conduct nutritional assessments, the low level of nutrition expert participation, and the poor support provided by hospital managers, which are often unaware of nutrition's impact in cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Experts recognized the importance of considering nutritional status in cancer patients and identified the opportunity provided by the NUTRI-ONCOCARE algorithm for this purpose, as it meets main requirements for being used routinely in clinical practice.

[Indicators monitoring the process of specialized nutritional support. Grupo de Nutrición de la SEFH]. / Indicadores de monitorización del proceso de soporte nutricional especializado.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and develop monitoring indicators of the process of specialized nutritional support that will allow measuring the level of adherence to the established practice standards. METHODS: Those practice standards considered to be key elements of the process were selected to develop performance indicators. The construction of these indicators combined the scientific evidence with expert opinion. Key goals were identified within each standard provided that its consecution would allow increasing the achievement of the standard. Particular improvement initiatives associated to each key goal were generated. Lastly, monitoring indicators were defined allowing undertaking a follow-up of the implementation of the improvement initiatives or either to assess the level of achievement of the key goals identified. RESULTS: Nineteen practice standards were selected representative of the critical points of the process. The strategic map for each standard has been defined, with the identification of 43 key goals. In order to achieve these key goals, a portfolio of improvements has been generated comprising 56 actions. Finally, 44 monitoring indicators have been defined grouped into three categories: 1. Numeric: they assess the level of goal achievement; 2. Dichotomic (yes/no): they inform on the execution of the improvement actions; 3. Results of the practice audits. CONCLUSIONS: We have made available monitoring indicators that allow assessing the level of adherence to the practice standards of the process of specialized nutritional support and the impact of the implementation of improvement actions within this process.

Indicadores de monitorización del proceso de soporte nutricional especializado / Indicators monitoring the process of specialized nutritional support

Objetivo: Identificar y desarrollar indicadores de monitorización del proceso de soporte nutricional especializado, que permitan medir el grado de cumplimiento de los estándares de práctica establecidos. Método: Se seleccionaron los estándares de práctica considerados aspectos clave del proceso sobre los que desarrollar indicadores de rendimiento. La construcción de indicadores combinó la evidencia científica con la opinión de expertos. Se identificaron los objetivos clave dentro de cada estándar cuya consecución permitiera incrementar el alcance del mismo. Se generaron iniciativas de mejora concretas vinculadas a cada objetivo clave. Por último, se definieron indicadores de monitorización que permitieran realizar un seguimiento de la implantación de las iniciativas de mejora, o bien valorar el grado de consecución de los objetivos clave identificados. Resultados: Se han seleccionado 19 estándares de práctica representativos de los aspectos críticos del proceso. Se ha definido el mapa estratégico de cada estándar, identificándose un total de 43 objetivos clave. A fin de alcanzar estos objetivos clave se ha generado una cartera de mejoras integrada por 56 acciones. Por último, se han definido 44 indicadores de monitorización agrupados en tres categorías: 1. Numéricos: valoran el grado de cumplimiento del objetivo; 2. Dicotómicos (si/no): Informan de la ejecución de las acciones de mejora; 3. Resultados de las auditorías de la práctica. Conclusiones: Se dispone de indicadores de monitorización que permiten evaluar el cumplimiento de los estándares de práctica del proceso de soporte nutricional especializado y el impacto de la implantación de acciones de mejora en el mismo (AU)

Objective: To identify and develop monitoring indicators of the process of specialized nutritional support that will allow measuring the level of adherence to the established practice standards. Methods: Those practice standards considered to be key elements of the process were selected to develop performance indicators. The construction of these indicators combined the scientific evidence with expert opinion. Key goals were identified within each standard provided that its consecution would allow increasing the achievement of the standard. Particular improvement initiatives associated to each key goal were generated. Lastly, monitoring indicators were defined allowing undertaking a follow-up of the implementation of the improvement initiatives or either to assess the level of achievement of the key goals identified. Results: Nineteen practice standards were selected representative of the critical points of the process. The strategic map for each standard has been defined, with the identification of 43 key goals. In order to achieve these key goals, a portfolio of improvements has been generated comprising 56 actions. Finally, 44 monitoring indicators have been defined grouped into three categories: 1. Numeric: they assess the level of goal achievement; 2. Dichotomic (yes/no): they inform on the execution of the improvement actions; 3. Results of the practice audits. Conclusions: We have made available monitoring indicators that allow assessing the level of adherence to the practice standards of the process of specialized nutritional support and the impact of the Implementation of improvement actions within this process (AU)