ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The safety of enteral formulas is important to restore and maintain the health of patients. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the microbiological contamination present in enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals and/or at home. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, Scopus, BVS, CAPES/MEC, Embase, Science Direct, and SciELO databases and gray literature. DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible studies that analyzed the contamination of enteral formulas manipulated in hospitals and/or at home were selected; a quality assessment tool was used. DATA ANALYSIS: Twenty-three studies evaluated 1099 enteral formulations. Of these, 44.67% of enteral formulas (n = 491) exceeded the acceptable bacterial count. Samples of homemade enteral formulation preparations (86.03%; n = 191) had the highest bacterial counts, followed by mixed preparations (79.72%; n = 59), and commercial formulas (30.01%; n = 241). The number of samples of enteral formulations that exceeded the bacterial count at home was 70.79% (n = 160 at the hospital was 37.91% (n = 331). Total coliforms (82.68%; n = 406) and mesophilic aerobes (79.22%; n = 389) were the most common microorganisms. Samples with bacterial pathogens were also identified, with Bacillus cereus (4.07%; n = 20) and Listeria monocytogenes (3.66%; n = 18) being the most prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: A high number of samples of enteral formulations exceeded the bacterial count, but the risk to patient's health when consuming enteral tube feeding prepared in hospitals or at home may be low. This is because the bacteria present in the samples are not considered potential causes of disease but rather indicators of hygiene conditions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022367573.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identifying food safety risks when handling enteral formulations at home is important to restore and maintain the health of patients. Therefore, this study developed and validated a food safety assessment checklist for handling home enteral nutrition (HEN). METHODS: This methodological study developed a checklist based on a literature review and interviews with food safety professionals. The content validation, which was conducted by food safety and enteral feeding experts, assessed the relevance, clarity, and simplicity of the checklist using the content validity index of items (CVI-I), categories (CVI-C), and the entire instrument (CVI-EI). Each item was rated as either essential, necessary, or recommended according to the risk in relation to foodborne diseases. RESULTS: The Food Safety for Handling Home Enteral Nutrition checklist (FSHEN checklist) that was developed includes 40 items and the following eight categories: physical structure; cleaning of facilities, equipment, furniture, and utensils; pests and waste; water supply; food handlers; ingredients and packaging; handling of enteral formulations; and the bottling and storage of enteral formulations. The CVI-EI was above the recommendation (≥0.93) for the three assessed criteria, as was the CVI-C in terms of clarity (≥0.95), relevance (≥0.98), and simplicity (≥0.84). A total of 52.5% of the items were rated as essential, 32.5% as necessary, and 15% as recommended. CONCLUSION: The FSHEN checklist is relevant, clear, and easy to use. It can help health professionals and individuals working in the field to assess and prioritize items to improve food safety in the management of HEN.
Subject(s)
Checklist , Enteral Nutrition , Humans , Food Safety , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk to patients' health when using home-prepared enteral tube feeding. The objective of this study was to explore the differences in hygiene conditions and microbial load of different types of home-prepared enteral tube feeding and explore associations between those differences and food handlers' characteristics. METHODS: We evaluated 96 enteral formulations, considering 3 types used by adult patients: homemade enteral preparations (HEPs), blended enteral preparations (BEPs), and commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Enteral formulations were collected from homes and microbiologically analyzed. Hygiene criteria were assessed using a checklist, applied during the handling stages. The profile of the food handler was reviewed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: 82.3% (79/96) exceeded acceptable bacterial counts, which was 10³ colony-forming units per gram for aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and for total coliforms (35 °C), Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus sp, and Staphylococcus coagulase-positive, if present in the enteral formulations. The number of inadequate samples was higher in HEPs and BEPs than in CEFs. Considering the hygiene criteria, the home-prepared enteral tube feedings did not differ significantly. There was a significant difference among hygiene conditions considering the variables "monthly family income" and "food training." CONCLUSION: Regardless of the type of enteral formulations used by patients, when handled at home, there was a risk of contamination. However, contaminants present in enteral formulations can be easily controlled with improvements in hygiene measures as well as with greater guidance and control during the handling stages.
