The Ontario Public Does Not Understand the Difference Between Registered Dietitians and Unregulated "Nutritionists": Results from a Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Current Ontario healthcare policy permits anyone to use the title "nutritionist" and practice as a clinician regardless of education and training. The title "dietitian," on the other hand, is protected under the Dietetics Act (1991) for use exclusively by individuals who undergo rigorous education and training in evidence-based nutrition. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to: identify whether the Ontario general public understands the difference between a registered dietitian (RD) and an unregulated "nutritionist;" understand experiences with RDs and "nutritionists;" and determine if the current nutrition landscape arising from gaps in healthcare policy has the potential to harm the public. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed methods survey study was carried out using inductive content analysis, descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 402) did not understand the difference between RDs and "nutritionists." Overall, public experiences have been significantly more positive when nutrition information/advice stemmed from an RD. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides justification for proposed legislative amendments to the Dietetics Act (1991) and the Regulated Health Professions Act (1991). These proposed amendments have been detailed in the full-text manuscript.

Enteral and Parenteral Order Writing Survey-A Collaborative Evaluation Between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Dietitians in Nutrition Support Dietetics Practice Group and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Dietetics Practice Section.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges. RESULTS: Seven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n = 558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting. CONCLUSION: PN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This paper has been approved by the Academy's Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

"Detoxify or Die": Qualitative Assessments of Ontario Nutritionists' and Dietitians' Blog Posts Related to Detoxification Diets.

While the title Registered Dietitian (RD) is regulated under provincial legislation in Ontario and other Canadian provinces, the title "nutritionist" is not regulated in Ontario, which poses potential risks to consumers who place misguided trust in those proclaiming to be nutrition experts. This is concerning as nutrition is a complex health care discipline and RDs, the recognized providers of credible nutrition information, must be registered with an accredited regulatory college that requires them to have undergone rigorous training, practicum placements, entrance examinations, and continuous professional development. The purpose of this study was to determine if Ontario-based unregulated nutritionists and RDs are providing safe, evidence-based, information regarding detoxification diets. Content from 10 blog posts were qualitatively analyzed using deductive content analysis with predetermined categorization matrices. The results revealed that Ontario nutritionists promoted detox diets and provided unproven, misleading, and potentially harmful information, whereas Ontario RDs did not promote detox diets and provided evidence-based, harm-reducing information. Additionally, conflicts of interest arose only in nutritionists' blog posts. RDs provided credible references for their information while nutritionists did not. Protecting the term "nutritionist" for use exclusively by RDs under provincial legislation would be a positive step towards ensuring Ontarians are receiving the highest quality evidence-based nutrition information.

Food and Nutritional Improvement Action of Communities in Japan: Lessons for the World.

In Japan, the national health policy "Healthy Japan 21 (second term)" was introduced in 2013 to support prevention of lifestyle-related disease. Policy has also been recently revised on the promotion of nutrition education (shokuiku). Community-based food and nutrition actions were developed based on those policies and aimed to reinforce the linkages across the food chain, looking along its length "from field to food", including production, processing, preparation, eating and disposal. Local government is responsible for identifying the important food and nutritional problems, to devise and group effective actions on the basis of local health issues. The National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) is responsible for carrying out public health staff training on policy-based health issues. Training carried out by the NIPH, the Japan Dietetic Association and the Japan Public Health Association was designed to create an enabling environment for nutrition action. The community-based actions, including nutrition education and information, are carried out by several bodies, including local government, schools, facilities, volunteer groups, residents' associations, and commercial companies, to establish sustainable food systems promoting healthy diets. The community-empowering actions and effective cooperation are reported as good practice models in an annual white paper by the Cabinet Office. Japanese dieticians are expected to share their experiences of local nutrition improvement activities in Japan with international colleagues. Experience from elsewhere, including from Japanese dieticians working in developing countries, should also be applied on their return.

Practice paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics abstract: ethical and legal issues of feeding and hydration.

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that individuals have the right to request or refuse nutrition and hydration as medical treatment. Registered dietitians should work collaboratively as part of an interprofessional team to make recommendations on providing, withdrawing, or withholding nutrition and hydration in individual cases and serve as active members of institutional ethics committees. This practice paper provides a proactive, integrated, systematic process to implement the Academy's position. The position and practice papers should be used together to address the history and supporting information of ethical and legal issues of feeding and hydration identified by the Academy. Elements of collaborative ethical deliberation are provided for pediatrics and adults and in different conditions. The process of ethical deliberation is presented with the roles and responsibilities of the registered dietitian and the dietetic technician, registered. Understanding the importance and applying concepts dealing with cultural values and religious diversity is necessary to integrate clinical ethics into nutrition care. Incorporating screening for quality-of-life goals is essential before implementing the Nutrition Care Process and improving health literacy with individual interactions. Developing institution-specific policies and procedures is necessary to accelerate the practice change with artificial nutrition, clinical ethics, and quality improvement projects to determine best practice. This paper supports the "Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Ethical and Legal Issues of Feeding and Hydration" published in the June 2013 issue of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Position of the academy of nutrition and dietetics: ethical and legal issues in feeding and hydration.

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that individuals have the right to request or refuse nutrition and hydration as medical treatment. Registered dietitians (RDs) should work collaboratively as part of the interprofessional team to make recommendations on providing, withdrawing, or withholding nutrition and hydration in individual cases and serve as active members of institutional ethics committees. RDs have an active role in determining the nutrition and hydration requirements for individuals throughout the life span. When individuals choose to forgo any type of nutrition and hydration (natural or artificial), or when individuals lack decision-making capacity and others must decide whether or not to provide artificial nutrition and hydration, RDs have a professional role in the ethical deliberation around those decisions. Across the life span, there are multiple instances when nutrition and hydration issues create ethical dilemmas. There is strong clinical, ethical, and legal support both for and against the administration of food and water when issues arise regarding what is or is not wanted by the individual and what is or is not warranted by empirical clinical evidence. When a conflict arises, the decision requires ethical deliberation. RDs' understanding of nutrition and hydration within the context of nutritional requirements and cultural, social, psychological, and spiritual needs provide an essential basis for ethical deliberation. RDs, as health care team members, have the responsibility to promote use of advanced directives. RDs promote the rights of the individual and help the health care team implement appropriate therapy. This paper supports the "Practice Paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Ethical and Legal Issues of Feeding and Hydration" published on the Academy website at: www.eatright.org/positions.