Enteral Nutrition Administration Record Prescribing Process Using Computerized Order Entry: A New Paradigm and Opportunities to Improve Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of malnutrition has been reported in 60% of hospitalized and up to 78% of patients admitted to intensive care units. Malnutrition has been associated with complications, such as infection, increased hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Nutritional support has been shown to reduce avoidable readmissions, pressure ulcers, malpractice claims, and hospital costs. Creating a new electronic nutrition administration record (ENAR) with a linked nutrition tab within the electronic health record (EHR) would promote enhanced patient outcomes by improving adherence to established institutional enteral nutrition (EN) protocols and achieving early energy goals. Additionally, it would enable a clear and standardized method for documentation and administration of EN therapy. METHODS: The multidisciplinary nutrition support team was established and met on a weekly basis to discuss strategies and barriers, identify stakeholders, evaluate the current state, and establish a process and workflow from the point of order entry, delivery, administration, and electronic documentation of orders of EN supplements. The aim of this article is to describe a systematic approach and process of creating a new ENAR with a linked nutrition tab in the EHR, and to illustrate the order panel built and lessons learned from the process. RESULTS: A separate nutrition tab was created in the EHR with minimal disruption in patient care and end-users' positive feedback for the new order panel. CONCLUSION: ENAR allows for easier data collection and promotes nutrition-related research that may result in enhanced patient care. Utilizing technology to build a full ENAR would result in optimized patient care and safety.

Nutrition Support Therapies on the Medication Administration Record: Impacts on Staff Perception of Nutrition Care.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that many hospitals in the United States have fragmented and ineffective ordering, administration, documentation, and evaluation/monitoring of nutrition therapies. This paper reports on a project to investigate if perceived hospital staff awareness and documentation of nutrition support therapies (NSTs) improves by including them as part of the medication administration record (MAR). METHODS: Surveys were conducted with nursing staff, physicians, and dietitians before and after adding NSTs to the MAR to evaluate the perceived impact on the outcome of interest. The outcomes of interest include nurses' perception of ease of finding information, awareness of an order, and ability to assess administration and documentation and dietitian, nurse, and physician staff perceptions of impact of intervention on aspects of the nutrition care process. RESULTS: After adding NST to the MAR, nursing staff perceived improvement in knowing that their patient had an oral nutritional supplement (ONS) order (P = .01), when and how much product was last administered (P = .01), and documentation of the type of product consumed (P = .01) and volume of product consumed (P = .01). The majority of dietitian and nurses surveyed reported perceived improvement in placing and finding ONS orders, in administration of ONS, in ability to evaluate patient nutrition status, and in ONS intake and a positive impact on clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of NST in the MAR presents an innovative solution to enhance staff awareness of ordered therapies and perception of improved documentation of nutrition interventions for hospitalized patients.

Optimizing the electronic health record to standardize administration and documentation of nutritional supplements.

Malnutrition in hospitalized patients is a major cause for hospital re-admission, pressure ulcers and increased hospital costs. Methods to improve the administration and documentation of nutritional supplements for hospitalized patients are needed to improve patient care, outcomes and resource utilization. Staff at a medium-sized academic health science center hospital in the southeastern United States noted that nutritional supplements ordered for patients at high risk for malnutrition were not offered or administered to patients in a standardized manner and/or not documented clearly in the electronic health record as per prescription. This paper reports on a process improvement project that redesigned the ordering, administration and documentation process of oral nutritional supplements in the electronic health record. By adding nutritional products to the medication order sets and adding an electronic nutrition administration record (ENAR) tab, the multidisciplinary team sought to standardize nutritional supplement ordering, documentation and administration at prescribed intervals. This process improvement project used a triangulated approach to evaluating pre- and post-process change including: medical record reviews, patient interviews, and nutrition formula room log reports. Staff education and training was carried out prior to initiation of the system changes. This process change resulted in an average decrease in the return of unused nutritional formula from 76% returned at baseline to 54% post-process change. The process change resulted in 100% of nutritional supplement orders having documentation about nutritional medication administration and/or reason for non-administration. Documentation in the ENAR showed that 41% of ONS orders were given and 59% were not given. Significantly more patients reported being offered the ONS product (p=0.0001) after process redesign and more patients (5% before ENAR and 86% after ENAR reported being offered the correct type, amount and frequency of nutritional products (p=0.0001). ENAR represented an effective strategy to improve administration and documentation of nutritional supplements for hospitalized patients.

Computer versus paper system for recognition and management of sepsis in surgical intensive care.

BACKGROUND: A system to provide surveillance, diagnosis, and protocolized management of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) sepsis was undertaken as a performance improvement project. A system for sepsis management was implemented for SICU patients using paper followed by a computerized system. The hypothesis was that the computerized system would be associated with improved process and outcomes. METHODS: A system was designed to provide early recognition and guide patient-specific management of sepsis including (1) modified early warning signs-sepsis recognition score (MEWS-SRS; summative point score of ranges of vital signs, mental status, white blood cell count; after every 4 hours) by bedside nurse; (2) suspected site assessment (vascular access, lung, abdomen, urinary tract, soft tissue, other) at bedside by physician or extender; (3) sepsis management protocol (replicable, point-of-care decisions) at bedside by nurse, physician, and extender. The system was implemented first using paper and then a computerized system. Sepsis severity was defined using standard criteria. RESULTS: In January to May 2012, a paper system was used to manage 77 consecutive sepsis encounters (3.9 ± 0.5 cases per week) in 65 patients (77% male; age, 53 ± 2 years). In June to December 2012, a computerized system was used to manage 132 consecutive sepsis encounters (4.4 ± 0.4 cases per week) in 119 patients (63% male; age, 58 ± 2 years). MEWS-SRS elicited 683 site assessments, and 201 had sepsis diagnosis and protocol management. The predominant site of infection was abdomen (paper, 58%; computer, 53%). Recognition of early sepsis tended to occur more using the computerized system (paper, 23%; computer, 35%). Hospital mortality rate for surgical ICU sepsis (paper, 20%; computer, 14%) was less with the computerized system. CONCLUSION: A computerized sepsis management system improves care process and outcome. Early sepsis is recognized and managed with greater frequency compared with severe sepsis or septic shock. The system has a beneficial effect as a clinical standard of care for SICU patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.