Review : nurses can improve patient nutrition in intensive care

Aims and objectives. To review the literature and identify opportunities for nutritional practice improvement in the critically ill and opportunities to improve nurses’ knowledge relating to enteral feeding.

Background. The literature reports varying nutritional practices in intensive care.

Design. Systematic review.

Methods. A systematic search, selection, analysis and review of nursing, medical and dietetic primary research articles was undertaken. Fifteen studies met the selection criteria.

Results. Delivery of nutrition to the critically ill varied widely. Patients were frequently underfed and less frequently, overfed. Both under- and overfeeding have been linked with unacceptable consequences including infections, extended weaning from mechanical ventilation, increased length of stay and increased mortality. Underfeeding was related to slow initiation and advancement of nutrition support and avoidable feed interruptions. The most common reasons for interrupting feeds were gastrointestinal intolerance and fasting for procedures. Certain nursing practices contributed to underfeeding such as the management of gastric residual volumes.

Conclusions. Consistent and reliable nutrition support in intensive care units is hampered by a lack of evidence leading to varying nutrition practices. Factors impeding delivery of enteral nutrition were considered avoidable. A new concept of a therapeutic range of energy delivery in the critically ill has emerged implying the need for re-evaluation of energy recommendations and improved delivery of enteral nutrition.

Relevance to clinical practice. This review supports the multi-disciplinary development and implementation of an evidence-based enteral feeding protocol in intensive care units as a strategy to improve adequacy of nutritional intake. Critical care nurses are well placed to improve this process.

Communication at the bedside to enhance patient care : a survey of nurses’ experience and perspective of handover

Strategies to support continuity of care and improve patient safety during clinical handover have been developed. The aims of this study were to identify the strengths and limitations in current practice of nursing clinical handover and implement a new bedside handover process. A total of 259 nurses completed a cross-sectional survey at change of shift on 1 day, which was followed by an audit of the pilot implementation of bedside handover. The survey results showed great variation in the duration, location and method of handover with significant differences in the experience of nurses employed part-time compared with full-time. Following implementation of standardized bedside handover on two wards, the audit revealed significant improvement in the involvement of patients, use of Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation, active patient checks and checking of documentation. These findings suggest the use of standardized protocols and communication tools for bedside handover improve continuity of patient care

Conceptualising health literacy from the patient perspective

Objective : A person's health literacy, i.e., their ability to seek, understand and use health information, is a critical determinant of whether they are able to actively participate in their healthcare. The objective of this study was to conceptualise health literacy from the patient perspective.

Methods : Using comprehensive qualitative methods 48 individuals were interviewed across three distinct groups in Australia: those with a chronic condition, the general community and individuals who had recently presented to a metropolitan public hospital emergency department. Purposeful sampling was employed to ensure a range of experiences was captured.

Results : Seven key abilities were identified: knowing when to seek health information; knowing where to seek health information; verbal communication skills; assertiveness; literacy skills; capacity to process and retain information; application skills.

Conclusion : This study identifies key abilities patients identified as critical to seek, understand and utilise information in the healthcare setting. These abilities are not reflected in existing measures for health literacy. Future measures of health literacy could consider incorporating abilities identified in this study and may provide guidance in developing health interventions to assist patients to participate effectively in their health.

Practice implications : More comprehensive measures to assess patient's health literacy are needed.

Patient-reported outcomes following islet cell or pancreas transplantation (alone or after kidney) in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

Aims For selected individuals with complex Type 1 diabetes, pancreatic islet transplantation (IT) offers the potential of excellent glycaemic controlwithout significant hypoglycaemia, balanced by the need for ongoing systemic immunosuppression. Increasingly, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered alongside biomedical outcomes as a measure of transplant success. PROs in IT have not previously been compared directlywith the closest alternate treatment option, pancreas transplant alone (PTA) or pancreas after kidney (PAK).

Methods We used a Population, Intervention, Comparisons, Outcomes (PICO) strategy to search Scopus and screened 314 references for inclusion.

Results Twelve studies [including PRO assessment of PAK, PTA, islet-after kidney (IAK) and islet transplant alone (ITA); n = 7–205] used a total of nine specified and two unspecified PRO measures. Results were mixed but identified some benefits which remained apparent up to 36 months post-transplant, including improvements in fear of hypoglycaemia, as well as some aspects of diabetes-specific quality of life (QoL) and general health status. Negative outcomes included short-term pain associated with the procedure, immunosuppressant side effects and depressed mood associated with loss of graft function.

Conclusions The mixed resultsmay be attributable to limited sample sizes. Also, some PROmeasures may lack sensitivity to detect actual changes, as they exclude issues and domains of life likely to be important forQoL post-transplantation and when patients may no longer perceive themselves to have diabetes. Thus, the full impact of islet ⁄ pancreas transplantation (alone or after kidney) on QoL is unknown. Furthermore, no studies have assessed patient satisfaction, which may highlight further advantages and disadvantages of transplantation.