Mealtime interruptions, assistance and nutritional intake in subacute care

Foodservice systems and mealtime models in rehabilitation: Scoping review

AIMS

To describe current foodservice systems and mealtime care utilized in the rehabilitation setting. A secondary aim was to identify commonly used outcome measures in foodservice research in the rehabilitation setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane were searched until January 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

The review was conducted according to Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews. Included studies were conducted in the inpatient rehabilitation setting, adult population ≥18 years old and provided a description of at least one element of the foodservice system, food and menu, waste and/or eating environment.

RESULTS

Of 5882 articles screened, 37 articles were included, reporting 31 unique studies. Most rehabilitation units had cook-fresh production methods (50%), used decentralized bulk delivery methods (67%) had a communal dining room (67%) and had a 3-week menu cycle (71%). Mealtime care was predominantly provided by nursing staff, however few studies reported on specific activities. Nutritional intake was a key outcome measure across included studies (43%), with only six papers reporting on rehabilitation outcomes. Of the intervention studies (n = 9), all were aimed at improving nutritional intake through menu or mealtime care modifications; few (n = 3) studied changes in rehabilitation outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified a considerable lack of reporting of foodservice and mealtime care systems used in rehabilitation settings in the available literature. Further investigation is required to understand what models of mealtime care are provided to patients and to understand the impact of changes to foodservice and mealtime systems on patient outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution was necessary for this review.

The impact of electronic meal ordering systems on hospital and patient outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a serious clinical issue associated with adverse patient and hospital outcomes. Hospitals need to consider interventions that support the provision of optimal nutritional management and care for patients. Electronic meal ordering (EMO) systems provide an alternative to traditional paper-based meal ordering with the capacity to support appropriate orders, monitor nutritional status, and potentially improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This review aimed to identify the impact of EMO systems on hospital and patient outcomes. We sought quantitative evidence (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from studies evaluating EMO systems in healthcare facilities, published after 1999 and available in the English language.

RESULTS

We identified 23 studies evaluating one of three distinct EMO system-supported models: spoken menu, room service, and self-service. While limited, the evidence indicated that EMO systems were associated with: improved patient satisfaction; decreased food waste; increased consumption; and, for spoken menus, more time with patients. There was no substantive evidence of impact on clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether EMO systems meet their potential to support nutritional monitoring and positively impact clinical outcomes remains unanswered within the evidence. Thus, policy makers and hospital management currently have a poor evidence base upon which to make decisions about the value of implementing EMO. Whether these systems can provide support and guidance to patients during meal ordering, improve order appropriateness and accuracy through compliance checking, identify patients in need of dietary education or those at risk of malnutrition are critical areas of focus for future research.

The efficacy of Protected Mealtimes in hospitalised patients: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Protected Mealtimes is an intervention developed to address the problem of malnutrition in hospitalised patients through increasing positive interruptions (such as feeding assistance) whilst minimising unnecessary interruptions (including ward rounds and diagnostic procedures) during mealtimes. This clinical trial aimed to measure the effect of implementing Protected Mealtimes on the energy and protein intake of patients admitted to the subacute setting.

METHODS

A prospective, stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken across three hospital sites at one health network in Melbourne, Australia. All patients, except those receiving end-of-life care or not receiving oral nutrition, admitted to these wards during the study period participated. The intervention was guided by the British Hospital Caterers Association reference policy on Protected Mealtimes and by principles of implementation science. Primary outcome measures were daily energy and protein intake. The study was powered to determine whether the intervention closed the daily energy deficit between estimated intake and energy requirements measured as 1900 kJ/day in the pilot study for this trial.

RESULTS

There were 149 unique participants, including 38 who crossed over from the control to intervention period as the Protected Mealtimes intervention was implemented. In total, 416 observations of 24-hour food intake were obtained. Energy intake was not significantly different between the intervention ([mean ± SD] 6479 ± 2486 kJ/day) and control (6532 ± 2328 kJ/day) conditions (p = 0.88). Daily protein intake was also not significantly different between the intervention (68.6 ± 26.0 g/day) and control (67.0 ± 25.2 g/day) conditions (p = 0.86). The differences between estimated energy/protein requirements and estimated energy/protein intakes were also limited between groups. The adjusted analysis yielded significant findings for energy deficit: (coefficient [robust 95% CI], p value) of -1405 (-2354 to -457), p = 0.004. Variability in implementation across aspects of Protected Mealtimes policy components was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this trial mirror the findings of other observational studies of Protected Mealtimes implementation where nutritional intakes were observed. Very few positive improvements to nutritional intake have been identified as a result of Protected Mealtimes implementation. Instead of this intervention, approaches with a greater level of evidence for improving nutritional outcomes, such as mealtime assistance, other food-based approaches and the use of oral nutrition support products to supplement oral diet, should be considered in the quest to reduce hospital malnutrition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614001316695 ; registered 16th December 2014.