Nutritional care is a human right: Translating principles to clinical practice.

We have previously advocated that nutritional care be raised to the level of a human right, in close relationship to two well-recognized fundamental rights: the right to food and the right to health. This article aims to analyze the implication of nutritional care as a human right for healthcare practitioners. We will focus on the impact of the Human Rights Basic Approach (HRBA) on healthcare professionals (HCPs), namely how they can translate HRBA into routine clinical practice. Ethics and human rights are guiding values for clinical nutrition practitioners. Together they ensure a patient-centered approach, in which the needs and rights of the patients are of the most significant importance. Human rights are based on the powerful idea of equal dignity for all people while expressing a set of core values, including fairness, respect, equality, dignity, and autonomy (FREDA). Through the analysis of FREDA principles, we have provided the elements to understand human rights and how an HRBA can support clinicians in the decision-making process. Clinical practice guidelines in clinical nutrition should incorporate disease-specific ethical issues and the HRBA. The HRBA should contribute to building conditions for HCPs to provide optimal and timely nutritional care. Nutritional care must be exercised by HCPs with due respect for several fundamental ethical values: attentiveness, responsibility competence, responsiveness, and solidarity.

Clinical Nutrition and Human Rights. An International Position Paper.

The International Working Group for Patients' Right to Nutritional Care presents its position paper regarding nutritional care as a human right intrinsically linked to the right to food and the right to health. All people should have access to food and evidence-based medical nutrition therapy including artificial nutrition and hydration. In this regard, the hospitalized malnourished ill should mandatorily have access to screening, diagnosis, nutritional assessment, with optimal and timely nutritional therapy in order to overcome malnutrition associated morbidity and mortality, while reducing the rates of disease-related malnutrition. This right does not imply there is an obligation to feed all patients at any stage of life and at any cost. On the contrary, this right implies, from an ethical point of view, that the best decision for the patient must be taken and this may include, under certain circumstances, the decision not to feed. Application of the human rights-based approach to the field of clinical nutrition will contribute to the construction of a moral, political, and legal focus to the concept of nutritional care. Moreover, it will be the cornerstone to the rationale of political and legal instruments in the field of clinical nutrition.

Clinical classification of adult patients with chronic intestinal failure due to benign disease: An international multicenter cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the applicability of the ESPEN 16-category clinical classification of chronic intestinal failure, based on patients' intravenous supplementation (IVS) requirements for energy and fluids, and to evaluate factors associated with those requirements. METHODS: ESPEN members were invited to participate through ESPEN Council representatives. Participating centers enrolled adult patients requiring home parenteral nutrition for chronic intestinal failure on March 1st 2015. The following patient data were recorded though a structured database: sex, age, body weight and height, intestinal failure mechanism, underlying disease, IVS volume and energy need. RESULTS: Sixty-five centers from 22 countries enrolled 2919 patients with benign disease. One half of the patients were distributed in 3 categories of the ESPEN clinical classification. 9% of patients required only fluid and electrolyte supplementation. IVS requirement varied considerably according to the pathophysiological mechanism of intestinal failure. Notably, IVS volume requirement represented loss of intestinal function better than IVS energy requirement. A simplified 8 category classification of chronic intestinal failure was devised, based on two types of IVS (either fluid and electrolyte alone or parenteral nutrition admixture containing energy) and four categories of volume. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' IVS requirements varied widely, supporting the need for a tool to homogenize patient categorization. This study has devised a novel, simplified eight category IVS classification for chronic intestinal failure that will prove useful in both the clinical and research setting when applied together with the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of the patient's intestinal failure.