Current practices in the delivery of parenteral nutrition in Australia

Barriers and Facilitators to Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition Implementation Targeting Protein Energy Wasting in Malaysian Hemodialysis Patients

The capacity to deliver intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) for patients on hemodialysis (HD) diagnosed with protein energy wasting (PEW) in low resource settings is unknown. This study aimed to examine the extent of IDPN practice in HD units in Malaysia, and its implementation to treat PEW. We surveyed pharmacists (n = 56), who are central to parenteral nutrition delivery in Malaysia including IDPN. Seventeen healthcare stakeholders engaging with the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework used the Likert scale to rate survey outcomes on IDPN implementation to treat PEW, according to the Evidence, Context, and Facilitation elements. IDPN for HD patients was available in 28 of 56 hospitals providing parenteral nutrition services, with only 13 hospitals (23.2%) providing IDPN to outpatients. Outpatient treatment was concentrated to urban locations (12/13) and significantly associated (p < 0.001) with resident nephrologists. The Evidence domain was rated poorly (2.18 ± 0.15) pertaining to IDPN indication when the oral spontaneous intake was ≤20 kcal/kg/day. The Context domain indicated good adherence to international best practice relating to IDPN administration (4.59 ± 0.15) and infusion time (4.59 ± 0.12). Poor adherence was observed in the Facilitation domain on ’Access to pharmacist and dietitian at HD units’ (2.65 ± 0.21) and ’Access to continuous medical education on managing PEW patients on HD’ (2.53 ± 0.15). The IDPN outpatient service was concentrated to urban hospitals with greater manpower resources. The PARIHS evaluation on IDPN implementation to treat PEW revealed facilitators in good practice adherence for prescribing and administration of IDPN but highlighted major barriers relating to IDPN indication and nutrient calculation.

Influence of Dietitians in Preventing Parenteral Nutrition Prescription Errors in Children

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to determine whether direct involvement by dietitians in parenteral nutrition (PN) ordering resulted in a reduction in PN prescriptions errors.

METHODS

A prospective audit of PN prescriptions was undertaken at a pediatric hospital over 50 weeks. Prescriptions for PN that had dietitian involvement (dietitian group) were compared with prescriptions in which dietitians were not directly involved (nondietitian group). The number of total prescriptions, the number of prescriptions with errors, and the types of errors from both groups were recorded. Errors were classified into "dietitian-preventable errors" and "nondietitian-preventable errors." Comparisons were made between prescriptions with and without errors, between dietitian-preventable and nondietitian-preventable errors, and between the dietitian and nondietitian groups per error type.

RESULTS

The total number of PN prescriptions was 725 (from 45 patients) and 471 (from 66 patients) for the dietitian and nondietitian groups, respectively. The nondietitian group was more likely than the dietitian group to prescribe PN incorrectly-18.0% (85 of 471) vs 12.4% (90 of 725; P = .007)-with the nondietitian group having 1.5-times more PN prescriptions with errors (risk ratio = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9). The total number of prescription errors was 126 and 146 for the dietitian and nondietitian groups, respectively. The dietitian group was less likely than the nondietitian group to be associated with dietitian-preventable errors: 65.9% (83 of 126) vs 87.0% (127 of 146; risk ratio = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Dietitian input into prescription of PN reduced the number of prescriptions with errors.

Energy, Protein, Carbohydrate, and Lipid Intakes and Their Effects on Morbidity and Mortality in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review

The guidelines for nutritional support in critically ill adult patients differ in various aspects. The optimal amount of energy and nutritional substrates supplied is important for reducing morbidity and mortality, but unfortunately this is not well known, because the topic is complex and every patient is individual. The aim of this review was to gather recent pertinent information concerning the nutritional support of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with respect to the energy, protein, carbohydrate, and lipid intakes and the effect of their specific utilization on morbidity and mortality. Enteral nutrition (EN) is generally recommended over parenteral nutrition (PN) and is beneficial when administered within 24-48 h after ICU admission. In contrast, early PN does not provide substantial advantages in terms of morbidity and mortality, and the time when it is safe and beneficial remains unclear. The most advantageous recommendation seems to be administration of a hypocaloric (<20 kcal · kg^-1 · d^-1), high-protein diet (amino acids at doses of ≥2 g · kg^-1 · d^-1), at least during the first week of critical illness. Another important factor for reducing morbidity is the maintenance of blood glucose concentrations at 120-150 mg/dL, which is accomplished with the use of insulin and lower doses of glucose of 1-2 g · kg^-1 · d^-1, because this prevents the risk of hypoglycemia and is associated with a better prognosis according to recent studies. A fat emulsion is used as a source of required calories because of insulin resistance in the majority of patients. In addition, lipid oxidation in these patients is ∼25% higher than in healthy subjects.

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: intensive care

Nutritional support in the intensive care setting represents a challenge but it is fortunate that its delivery and monitoring can be followed closely. Enteral feeding guidelines have shown the evidence in favor of early delivery and the efficacy of use of the gastrointestinal tract. Parenteral nutrition (PN) represents an alternative or additional approach when other routes are not succeeding (not necessarily having failed completely) or when it is not possible or would be unsafe to use other routes. The main goal of PN is to deliver a nutrient mixture closely related to requirements safely and to avoid complications. This nutritional approach has been a subject of debate over the past decades. PN carries the considerable risk of overfeeding which can be as deleterious as underfeeding. Therefore the authors will present not only the evidence available regarding the indications for PN, its implementation, the energy required, its possible complementary use with enteral nutrition, but also the relative importance of the macro- and micronutrients in the formula proposed for the critically ill patient. Data on long-term survival (expressed as 6 month survival) will also be considered a relevant outcome measure. Since there is a wide range of interpretations regarding the content of PN and great diversity in its practice, our guidance will necessarily reflect these different views. The papers available are very heterogeneous in quality and methodology (amount of calories, nutrients, proportion of nutrients, patients, etc.) and the different meta-analyses have not always taken this into account. Use of exclusive PN or complementary PN can lead to confusion, calorie targets are rarely achieved, and different nutrients continue to be used in different proportions. The present guidelines are the result of the analysis of the available literature, and acknowledging these limitations, our recommendations are intentionally largely expressed as expert opinions.