Use and safety of enteral nutrition protocols in acute care: A scoping review of literature and retrospective audit of practice.

AIM: Standardised enteral nutrition protocols are recommended in critical care, however their use and safety are not well described in other inpatient populations. This mixed methods study reports on the use and safety of enteral nutrition protocols for non-critically ill adults. METHODS: A scoping review of published literature was conducted. In addition a retrospective audit of practice at an Australian tertiary teaching hospital with an existing hospital-wide standardised enteral nutrition protocol was performed. Data on use, safety and adequacy of enteral nutrition prescription were collected from medical records for patients receiving enteral nutrition on acute wards (January-March 2020). RESULTS: Screening of 9298 records yielded six primary research articles. Studies were generally low quality. Published literature suggested that protocols may reduce time to enteral nutrition initiation and goal rate, and improve adequacy of nutrition provision. No adverse outcomes were reported. From the local audit of practice (105 admissions, 98 patients), enteral nutrition commencement was timely (median 0 (IQR 0-1) days from request; goal rate: median 1 (IQR 0-2) days from commencement and adequate (nil underfeeding), without prior dietitian review in 82% of cases. Enteral nutrition was commenced per protocol in 61% of instances. No adverse events, including refeeding syndrome, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most inpatients requiring enteral nutrition can be safely and adequately managed on enteral nutrition protocols. Evaluation of protocols outside of the critical care setting remains a gap in the literature. Standardised enteral nutrition protocols may improve delivery of nutrition to patients, whilst allowing dietitians to focus on those with specialised nutrition support needs.

Adding mini meals to a nasogastric refeeding protocol for patients with eating disorders can be achieved on general hospital wards.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of medically compromised patients with eating disorders is difficult in general hospital wards. There is currently no consensus on the best feeding method; however, previous research has demonstrated the safety of using enteral feeding. Because an oral diet has benefits on psychological and behavioural pathways, concurrent feeding requires further investigation. The present study aimed to examine acceptability and safety of implementing mini meals to a previously nil-by-mouth 7-day enteral feeding protocol. METHODS: This was mixed methods research including a retrospective observational study and participant survey. Patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, between July 2020 and March 2021 were eligible. Eligible participants were provided mini meals from day 5. Type and quantity of meals consumed alongside clinical incident data were collected. The survey examined acceptability of mini meals. Descriptive statistics were used to interpret findings. Content analyses were conducted on survey responses. RESULTS: Sixty-four participants (95%, n = 57/60 female, 25.2 ± 8.9 years; 75%, n = 45/60 diagnosed with anorexia nervosa) were included. At least half of the participants consumed some or all of the mini meals at each meal period. No clinical incidents were reported. Twenty-six (50%, n = 26/52) surveys were returned. Half (54%, n = 14/26) agreed-strongly agreed that mini meals improved their experience. Eleven participants desired more choice in menu items. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that introducing mini meals into an enteral feeding protocol is acceptable and safe for patients with eating disorders. Participants reported benefits in returning to eating; however, some items on the menu require reconsideration to enable increased consumption.

Acceptability of using a nasogastric refeeding protocol with adult patients with medically unstable eating disorders.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Nasogastric feeding is becoming commonly used to support patients with medically compromised eating disorders. Previous research has demonstrated the safety of this approach, however there is limited evidence as to how adult patients and staff perceive this feeding method. This study aimed to describe the acceptability of a nasogastric refeeding protocol with adult patients with medically unstable eating disorders and the staff involved in their treatment. METHOD: This was a qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews conducted in acute medical wards of a tertiary hospital where nasogastric nutrition is the sole source of nutrition for the first 7 days of the eating disorder admission. Data were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Eight patients (100% female, median: 22 years old, n = 6 diagnosed with anorexia nervosa) and 12 staff members (medical n = 5, nursing n = 5, dietitians n = 2; median: 8.5 years clinical experience) were interviewed. Patients reported that nasogastric feeding was tolerable, however concerns were raised regarding communication and the desire for concurrent oral feeding. Acceptability from staff was influenced by perceived competence, confidence, tensions around patient-centred care, and working with stigma and ambivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration needs to be given as to whether a 'nil by mouth' status during nasogastric feeding further impacts recommencing an oral diet to progress treatment. Improvements are required within the current service, including improved communication, additional educational resources for patients, and allowing patients to partake in decision-making as able.

Access to inpatient diabetes resources: hospital characteristics from the inaugural Queensland Inpatient Diabetes Survey.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is common in hospitalised patients and despite this inpatient diabetes care in Queensland has not had large scale benchmarking or audit. AIMS: To establish the prevalence of diabetes in Queensland hospitals and assess the availability of specialised diabetes staff, educational resources and policies for inpatient diabetes management, including assessing equity of access to these resources. METHODS: The hospital capacity, prevalence of diabetes, diabetes-related resources and the availability of diabetes-related guidelines were assessed in 25 hospitals medical, surgical, mental health, high-dependency and intensive care wards across Queensland. Dedicated diabetes staffing measured in full-time equivalents (FTE), care delivery resources, access to educational resources, standard policies and procedures for care were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five hospitals included 4265 occupied beds. The median prevalence of diabetes was 22.9% (interquartile range (IQR) 17.3-28.5%) with an average 2.9 FTE per 100 patients with diabetes (IQR 0-6.3). There was difficulty in accessing a diabetes educator in 48% (n = 12), diabetes specialist in 44% (n = 11), orthopaedic surgeon in 48% (n = 12), podiatrist in 58% (n = 14) and vascular surgeon in 64% (n = 16) of hospitals. Small hospitals had more difficulty accessing all members of the diabetes team compared with large hospitals including credentialled diabetes educators 33% (n = 4) versus 62% (n = 8) (P < 0.01), diabetes specialists 17% (n = 2) versus 69% (n = 9) (P < 0.01) and vascular surgeons 33% (n = 4) versus 92% (n = 12) (P < 0.01). Diabetes-related staff education and regular nurse training was available in 40% (n = 10) of hospitals. A multi-disciplinary foot care team was available in 28% (n = 7) of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Queensland has a high prevalence of diabetes in hospitalised patients and they have limited and inequitable access to inpatient diabetes-related care.

The Queensland Inpatient Diabetes Survey (QuIDS) 2019: the bedside audit of practice.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of care for patients with diabetes in Queensland hospitals, including blood glucose control, rates of hospital-acquired harm, the incidence of insulin prescription and management errors, and appropriate foot and peri-operative care. DESIGN, SETTING: Cross-sectional audit of 27 public hospitals in Queensland: four of five tertiary/quaternary referral centres, four of seven large regional or outer metropolitan hospitals, seven of 13 smaller outer metropolitan or small regional hospitals, and 12 of 88 hospitals in rural or remote locations. PARTICIPANTS: 850 adult inpatients with diabetes mellitus in medical, surgical, mental health, high dependency, or intensive care wards. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 115 public hospitals that admit acute inpatients participated in the audit, including 4175 of 6652 eligible acute hospital beds in Queensland. A total of 1003 patients had diabetes (24%), and data were collected for 850 (85%). Their mean age was 65.9 years (SD, 15.1 years), 357 were women (42%), and their mean HbA1c level was 66 mmol/mol (SD, 26 mmol/mol). Rates of good diabetes days (appropriate monitoring, no more than one blood glucose measurement greater than 10 mmol/L, and none below 5 mmol/L) were low in patients with type 1 diabetes (22.1 per 100 patient-days) or type 2 diabetes treated with insulin (40.1 per 100 patient-days); hypoglycaemia rates were high for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (24.1 episodes per 100 patient-days). One or more medication errors were identified for 201 patients (32%), including insulin prescribing errors for 127 patients (39%). Four patients with type 1 diabetes experienced diabetic ketoacidosis in hospital (8%); 121 patients (14%) met the criteria for review by a specialist diabetes team but were not reviewed by any diabetes specialist (medical, nursing, allied health). CONCLUSIONS: We identified several deficits in inpatient diabetes management in Queensland, including high rates of medication error and hospital-acquired harm and low rates of appropriate glycaemic control, particularly for patients treated with insulin. These deficits require attention, and ongoing evaluation of outcomes is necessary.