Dietitians' opinions regarding refeeding syndrome, clinical guidelines and extended scope of practice.

AIM: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) prevalence rates vary across studies depending on the criteria used for assessment and identification. For registered dietitians, the assessment and management of RFS is highly reliant on daily serum electrolyte values; however, registered dietitians working within Australia do not currently possess laboratory test ordering privileges. We aimed to examine the opinions of registered dietitians regarding RFS identification, management and guidelines and the option of using extended scope of practice to order electrolyte monitoring autonomously. METHODS: A multi-method action research approach was used, incorporating two projects. The first was a survey examining Australian registered dietitians' (n = 187) opinions regarding RFS identification, management and guidelines, and autonomous electrolyte monitoring. To establish if results were similar internationally, an interview was conducted with 22 registered dietitians working within 10 different countries. Data were analysed using chi-square tests and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Australian registered dietitians (75%) identify patients at risk of RFS at a high rate of more than once per fortnight, with 74% reporting that they have previously worked with a patient diagnosed with RFS. Results varied internationally, with respondents from eight countries reporting that RFS is a problem within acute care versus respondents from five countries having never treated a patient with RFS. The majority (≥89%) of registered dietitians desire new guidelines and the option to order patient electrolyte monitoring autonomously. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that more stringent tools for the identification of RFS are necessary. There was limited uniformity across countries, and updated practice guidelines are needed.

The accuracy and consistency of nutrition care process terminology use in cases of refeeding syndrome.

AIM: Using standardised terminology in acute care has encouraged consistency in patient care and the evaluation of outcomes. As such, the Nutrition Care Process (NCP) and Nutrition Care Process Terminology (NCPT) may assist dietitian nutritionists in the delivery of high quality nutrition care worldwide; however, limited research has been conducted examining the consistency and accuracy of its use. We aimed to examine the NCPT that dietitian nutritionists would use to formulate a diagnostic statement relating to refeeding syndrome (RFS). METHODS: A multimethod action research approach was used, incorporating two projects. The first was a survey examining Australian dietitian nutritionists' (n = 195) opinions regarding NCPT use in cases of RFS. To establish if results were similar internationally, an interview was then conducted with 22 dietitian nutritionists working within 10 different countries. RESULTS: 'Imbalance of nutrients' was only identified as a correct code by 17% of respondents in project 1. No mention of this term was made in project 2. Also 86% of respondents incorrectly selected more than one diagnostic code. The majority of respondents (80%, n = 52/65) who incorrectly selected 'Malnutrition', without also selecting 'Imbalance of nutrients', selected 'reduce intake' as an intervention, suggesting some misunderstanding in the requirement for interrelated diagnoses, interventions and goals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that there is limited accuracy and consistency in selecting nutritional diagnostic codes in relation to RFS. Respondents also demonstrated limited knowledge regarding appropriate application of the NCP and NCPT. Implementation practices may require further refinement, as accurate and consistent use is required to procure the benefits of standardised terminology.