Clinical research imperatives: principles and priorities from the perspective of Allied Health executives and managers.

Objective It is widely understood that a key means of improving health systems and patient outcomes is through research - accessing, understanding, generating and applying research evidence-based practice. To promote more targeted and strategic research in Allied Health practice, this study sought to establish the principles, areas and priorities for clinical research as perceived by Allied Health leaders in the South Australian public health system. Methods The study used a mixed-methods design (full, sequential and equal model). Participants were recruited from theSouth Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing employment lists for Allied Health senior leaders. Consenting participants attended face-to-face focus groups; after an overview presentation, they discussed the principles for Allied Health research, followed by areas and priorities for research. Summaries of the responses were themed descriptively and circulated electronically so participants could confirm the research areas and ascribe priority ratings, clinical populations and services. Results A total of 28 people attended the stakeholder forum (5 online); 20 responded to the second-round electronic summary. Nine principles of research action were agreed. Fourteen research areas were identified and prioritised. There was a relatively consistent prioritisation of measuring Allied Health value, Allied Health workforce, hospital avoidance and closing the gap for Aboriginal health outcomes - whether the individuals were thinking about their own service or the state as a whole. Conclusions Allied Health leadership identified key principles and priorities for research to improve service delivery and patient outcomes. These priorities should generate further discussion and interest for novice and experienced researchers and leaders and can be used to inform granting and project plans.

Nutritional risk screening in noninvasively mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients: A feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition rates for critically ill patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are reported to range from 38% to 78%. Malnutrition in the ICU is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, length of hospital admission, and ICU readmission rates. The high volume of ICU admissions means that efficient screening processes to identify patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk are imperative to appropriately prioritise nutrition intervention. As the proportion of noninvasively mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU increases, the feasibility of using nutrition risk screening tools in this population needs to be established. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility of using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) with the modified NUtriTion Risk In the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score for identifying patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk in this population. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective, descriptive, feasibility study was conducted. The MUST and mNUTRIC tool were completed within 24 h of ICU admission in a convenience sample of noninvasively mechanically ventilated adult patients (≥18 years) by a trained allied health assistant. The number (n) of eligible patients screened, time to complete screening (minutes), and barriers to completion were documented. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation), and the independent samples t-test was used for comparisons between tools. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included (60% men; aged 65.3 [13.9] years). Screening using the MUST took a significantly shorter time to complete than screening using the mNUTRIC tool (8.1 [2.8] vs 22.1 [5.6] minutes; p = 0.001). Barriers to completion included obtaining accurate weight history for the MUST and time taken for collection of information and overall training requirements to perform mNUTRIC. CONCLUSIONS: The MUST took less time and had fewer barriers to completion than mNUTRIC. The MUST may be the more feasible nutrition risk screening tool for use in noninvasively mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.

Relationship between nutritional status on admission to the intensive care unit and clinical outcomes.

AIM: To determine the prevalence of malnutrition on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and the relationship between nutritional status on admission and clinical outcomes in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a prospective study in an adult ICU. Patients with expected length of stay (LOS) >48 hours in ICU were assessed for nutritional status using the patient generated-subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) within 48 hours of admission to ICU. RESULTS: Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital LOS and length of mechanical ventilation. A total of 166 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were aged 59 ± 17 years on average with a mean BMI of 29 ± 7 kg/m2 and a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 19 ± 7. The prevalence of malnutrition in critically ill patients was 36% (n = 60). Mortality rate of malnourished patients was 9% (n = 15) compared to 7.8% (n = 13) in well-nourished patients (adjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-5.03, P = .069). There was no difference in hospital mortality between malnourished patients and well-nourished patients (10.2% vs 10.2% adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-4.19, P = .096). There was no relationship between nutritional status and length of mechanical ventilation (3.0 vs 1.0 days, P = .382)or ICU LOS (4.7 vs 4.8 days, P = .59). Malnourished patients had a longer LOS in hospital than well-nourished patients (24 vs 17 days, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Malnutrition is an independent risk factor for increased hospital LOS.

Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Dysmotility in Critically Ill Burn Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility impedes nutrient delivery in critically ill patients with major burns. We aimed to quantify the incidence, timing, and factors associated with GI dysmotility and subsequent nutrition delivery. METHODS: A 10-year retrospective observational study included mechanically ventilated, adult, critically ill patients with ≥15% total body surface area (TBSA) burns receiving nutrition support. Patients with a single gastric residual volume ≥250 mL were categorized as having GI dysmotility. Daily medical and nutrition data were extracted for ≤14 days in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data are mean (SD) or median (interquartile range). Factors associated with GI dysmotility and the effect on nutrition and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were eligible; 51% (n = 30) with GI dysmotility and 49% (n = 29) without. Baseline characteristics (dysmotility vs no dysmotility) were age (48 [33-60] vs 34 [26-46] years); Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (16 [12-17] vs 13 [10-16]); sex ([men] 80% vs 86%); and TBSA (49% [35%-59%] vs 38% [26%-55%]). Older age was associated with increased probability of dysmotility (P = .049). GI dysmotility occurred 32 (19-63) hours after ICU admission but was not associated with reduced nutrient delivery. Postpyloric tube insertions were attempted in 83% (n = 25) of patients, with 72% (n = 18) being successful. Postpyloric feeding achieved higher nutrition adequacy than gastric feeding (energy: 82% [95% CI, 70-94] vs 68% [95% CI, 63-74], P = .036; protein: 75% [95% CI, 65-86] vs 61% [95% CI, 56-65], P = .009). CONCLUSION: GI dysmotility occurs early in critically ill burn patients, and postpyloric feeding improves nutrition delivery.

Nutrition-related outcomes and dietary intake in non-mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients: A pilot observational descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients who do not receive invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are a growing population, experiencing complex interventions that may impair dietary intake and nutrition-related outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to quantify intake and nutrition-related outcomes of non-IMV critically ill patients and to establish feasibility of methods to measure nutrition-related outcomes in this population. METHODS: Non-IMV adult patients expected to remain in the intensive care unit (ICU) for ≥24 h were eligible. Nutrition-related outcomes were assessed at baseline by subjective global assessment (SGA); on alternate study days by mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), calf circumference (CC), and ultrasound of quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT); and daily by body weight and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Data were censored at day 5 or ICU discharge. Dietary intake from all sources, including oral intake via investigator-led weighed food records, was quantified on days 1-3. Feasibility was defined as data completion rate ≥70%. Data are expressed as mean (standard deviation) or median [interquartile range (IQR)]. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients consented (50% male; 53 [42-64] y; ICU stay: 2.8 [1.9-4.0] d). Nutrition-related outcomes at baseline and ICU discharge were as follows: MUAC: 33.2 (8.6) cm (n = 18) and 29.3 (5.4) cm (n = 6); CC: 39.5 (7.4) cm (n = 16) and 37.5 (6.2) cm (n = 6); body weight: 95.3 (34.8) kg (n = 19) and 95.6 (41.0) kg (n = 10); and QMLT: 2.6 (0.8) cm (n = 15) and 2.5 (0.3) cm (n = 5), respectively. Oral intake provided 3155 [1942-5580] kJ and 32 [20-53] g protein, with poor appetite identified as a major barrier. MUAC, CC, QMLT, and SGA were feasible, while BIA and body weight were not. CONCLUSIONS: Oral intake in critically ill patients not requiring IMV is below estimated requirements, largely because of poor appetite. The small sample and short study duration were not sufficient to quantify changes in nutrition-related outcomes. MUAC, CC, QMLT, and SGA are feasible methods to assess nutrition-related outcomes at a single time point in this population.

A retrospective evaluation of nutrition support in relation to clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with an open abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Optimising nutrition support in critically ill patients with an open abdomen is challenging. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (i) quantify the amount and adequacy of nutrition support administered and (ii) determine any relationships that exist between mode of nutrition support delivery and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with an open abdomen. METHODS: A retrospective review of critically ill patients mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h with an open abdomen in a mixed quaternary referral intensive care unit. Enteral and parenteral nutrition (ml) administered daily to patients was recorded for up to 21 days. Length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital and duration of mechanical ventilation (days) were reported. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied [14 male, 68 y (15-90 y), body mass index 25 kg/m2 (11-51 kg/m2), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 20 (7-41), energy goal 1860 kcal/d (1250-2712 kcal/d)]. Patients received 55% (0-117%) of energy goal and 56% (0-105%) protein goal from either enteral or parenteral nutrition. When enteral nutrition was delivered alone or in combination with parenteral nutrition, patients received 48% (0-146%) of their energy and 59% (19-105%) of their protein goal. Patients fed parenteral nutrition, either alone or as supplementary to enteral nutrition (n = 18), received more energy when compared with those who only received enteral nutrition (n = 9) [65 (27-117) vs 49 (15-89) % energy goal, P = 0.025]. Parenteral nutrition was associated with an increased length of stay in hospital [63 (45-156) vs 45 (17-93) d, P = 0.037]. CONCLUSION: Patients with an open abdomen receive about half of their nutrition requirements when fed exclusively via the enteral route. Providing combination enteral and parenteral nutrition to reach nutritional goals may not result in better clinical outcomes for patients with an open abdomen.

Post-pyloric feeding tube placement in critically ill patients: Extending the scope of practice for Australian dietitians.

AIM: To determine whether the placement of a post-pyloric feeding tube (PPFT) can be taught safely and effectively to a critical care dietitian. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted in an adult intensive care unit (ICU). The intervention consisted of 19 attempts at post-pyloric intubation by the dietitian. The 10 'learning' attempts were performed by the dietitian under the direction of an experienced (having completed in excess of 50 successful tube placements) user. A subsequent nine 'consolidation' attempts were performed under the responsibility of the intensive care consultant on duty. The primary outcome measures were success (i.e. tip of the PPFT being visible in or distal to the duodenum on X-ray) and time (minutes) to PPFT placement. Patients were observed for adverse events per standard clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 19 post-pyloric tube placements were attempted in 18 patients (52 (23-70) years, ICU admission diagnoses: trauma n = 4; respiratory failure n = 3; and burns, pancreatitis and renal failure n = 2 each). No adverse events occurred. Most (75%) patients were sedated, and mechanically ventilated. Prokinetics were used to assist tube placement in 11% (2/19) of attempts, both of which were successful. Placement of PPFT was successful in 58% (11/19) of attempts. Whilst training, the success rate was 40% (4/10) compared with 78% (7/9) once training was consolidated (P = 0.17). In the successful attempts, the mean time to placement was 11.0 minutes (3.9-27.1 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: A dietitian can be trained to safely and successfully place PPFT in critically ill patients.

Association Between Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review [Formula: see text].

Malnutrition is associated with poor clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients. However, studies linking malnutrition with poor clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) often have conflicting findings due in part to the inappropriate diagnosis of malnutrition. We primarily aimed to determine whether malnutrition diagnosed by validated nutrition assessment tools such as the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) or Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) is independently associated with poorer clinical outcomes in the ICU and if the use of nutrition screening tools demonstrate a similar association. PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible studies. Search terms included were synonyms of malnutrition, nutritional status, screening, assessment, and intensive care unit. Eligible studies were case-control or cohort studies that recruited adults in the ICU; conducted the SGA, MNA, or used nutrition screening tools before or within 48 hours of ICU admission; and reported the prevalence of malnutrition and relevant clinical outcomes including mortality, length of stay (LOS), and incidence of infection (IOI). Twenty of 1168 studies were eligible. The prevalence of malnutrition ranged from 38% to 78%. Malnutrition diagnosed by nutrition assessments was independently associated with increased ICU LOS, ICU readmission, IOI, and the risk of hospital mortality. The SGA clearly had better predictive validity than the MNA. The association between malnutrition risk determined by nutrition screening was less consistent. Malnutrition is independently associated with poorer clinical outcomes in the ICU. Compared with nutrition assessment tools, the predictive validity of nutrition screening tools were less consistent.