Barriers to accurately measuring patients' dietary intake in hospitals using the visual estimation method

Dietary assessment methods for measurement of oral intake in acute care and critically ill hospitalised patients: a scoping review

Quantification of oral intake within the hospital setting is required to guide nutrition care. Multiple dietary assessment methods are available, yet details regarding their application in the acute care setting are scarce. This scoping review, conducted in accordance with JBI methodology, describes dietary assessment methods used to measure oral intake in acute and critical care hospital patients. The search was run across four databases to identify primary research conducted in adult acute or critical care settings from 1st of January 2000-15th March 2023 which quantified oral diet with any dietary assessment method. In total, 155 articles were included, predominantly from the acute care setting (n = 153, 99%). Studies were mainly single-centre (n = 138, 88%) and of observational design (n = 135, 87%). Estimated plate waste (n = 59, 38%) and food records (n = 43, 28%) were the most frequent assessment methods with energy and protein the main nutrients quantified (n = 81, 52%). Validation was completed in 23 (15%) studies, with the majority of these using a reference method reliant on estimation (n = 17, 74%). A quarter of studies (n = 39) quantified completion (either as complete versus incomplete or degree of completeness) and four studies (2.5%) explored factors influencing completion. Findings indicate a lack of high-quality evidence to guide selection and application of existing dietary assessment methods to quantify oral intake with a particular absence of evidence in the critical care setting. Further validation of existing tools and identification of factors influencing completion is needed to guide the optimal approach to quantification of oral intake in both research and clinical contexts.

Dietary intake in hospitals: A systematic literature review of the validity of the visual estimation method to assess food consumption and energy and protein intake

BACKGROUND

Accurate dietary assessment is an essential component for nutrition care planning and monitoring. The visual estimation method (VEM) of dietary assessment is routinely used in hospitals around the world. Therefore, clarity regarding its validity is imperative.

AIM

To conduct a systematic literature review to evaluate the validity of the VEM to assess food consumption and energy and protein intake in the hospital setting.

METHODS

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and checklist. Full-text manuscripts, published in English between January 2000 and September 2021, were searched using five electronic databases. A further manual search of reference lists was conducted.

RESULTS

14 studies evaluating the validity of 12 different VEMs were included. 12 studies used various point-scales (0-100%), three with pre-determined nutrient estimates assigned to each intake level, and nine without. Two studies used modern technology. Results indicate that the VEM can achieve validity at the group level, but support at the individual level was limited. No one method of visual estimation appeared to be more valid than another; however, training of raters appears to be important.

CONCLUSION

The VEM shows potential as a valid tool for dietary monitoring in hospitals. Further high-quality research is required to establish the effects of meal and rater characteristics on validity at the group and individual levels. Furthermore, to reflect current modes of implementation more fully, research is needed to evaluate the validity of the VEM when operated via food-service software suites.

Differences in the validity of a visual estimation method for determining patients' meal intake between various meal types and supplied food items

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine differences in the validity of a visual estimation method for determining patients' meal intake between various meal types and supplied food items in hospitals and to find factors influencing the validity of a visual estimation method.

METHODS

There are two procedures by which we obtained the information on dietary intake of the patients in these hospitals. These are both by visual assessment from the meal trays at the time of their clearing, by the attending nursing staff and by weighing conducted by researchers. The following criteria are set for the target trays: A) standard or therapeutic meals, which are monitored by a doctor, for energy and/or protein and/or sodium; B) regular, bite-sized, minced and pureed meal texture, and C) half-portion meals. Visual assessment results were tested for their validity by comparing with the corresponding results of weighing. Differences between these two methods indicated the estimated and absolute values of nutrient intake.

RESULTS

A total of 255 (76.1%) trays were included in the analysis out of the 335 possible trays and the results indicated that the energy consumption estimates by visual or weighing procedures are not significantly different (412 ± 173 kcal, p = 0.15). However, the mean protein consumption was significantly different (16.3 ± 6.7 g/tray, p < 0.01) between the two procedures. Compared with standard meals (38 ± 45 kcal, 1.9 ± 2.5 g/tray), raters significantly misestimated the energy and protein intake of half-portion meals (78 ± 65 kcal, 2.8 ± 2.2 g/tray, p = 0.01) but accurately estimated the protein intake of protein controlled meals (0.5 ± 0.6 g/tray, p = 0.03). Trays adding supplied food items were significantly misestimated for energy intake (66 ± 58 kcal/tray) compared to trays with no additions (32 ± 39 kcal/tray, p < 0.01). Moreover, the results of multivariable analysis demonstrated that supplied food items were significantly associated with increased odds of a difference between the two methods (OR: 3.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-13.85).

CONCLUSIONS

There were high correlations between the visual estimation method and the weighing method measuring patients' dietary intake for various meal types and textures, except for meals with added supplied food items. Nursing staff need to be attentive to supplied food items.

Differences in characteristics of raters who use the visual estimation method in hospitals based on their training experiences

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite a clinical need, only a few studies have provided information concerning visual estimation training for raters to improve the validity of their evaluations. This study aims to describe the differences in the characteristics of raters who evaluated patients' dietary intake in hospitals using the visual estimation method based on their training experiences.

METHODS

We collected data from three hospitals in Tokyo from August to September 2016. The participants were 199 nursing staff members, and they completed a self-administered questionnaire on demographic data; working career; training in the visual estimation method; knowledge, attitude, and practice associated with nutritional care; and self-evaluation of method validity of and skills of visual estimation. We classified participants into two groups, experienced and inexperienced, based on whether they had received training. Square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to describe the differences between these two groups in terms of their characteristics; knowledge, attitude, and practice associated with nutritional care; and self-evaluation of method validity and tips used in the visual estimation method.

RESULTS

Of the 158 staff members (79.4%) (118 nurses and 40 nursing assistants) who agreed to participate in the analysis, thirty-three participants (20.9%) were trained in the visual estimation method. Participants who had received training had better knowledge (2.70 ± 0.81, score range was 1-5) than those who had not received any training (2.34 ± 0.74, p = 0.03). Score of self-evaluation of method validity of the visual estimation method was higher in the experienced group (3.78 ± 0.61, score range was 1-5) than the inexperienced group (3.40 ± 0.66, p < 0.01). Mean total scores of using tips in the visual estimation method in the experienced and inexperienced groups were 19.6 ± 1.76 and 17.9 ± 2.28, respectively (score range was 6-24), differing significantly between the two groups (p < 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that participants who had been trained had adequate knowledge (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.05-7.35) and frequently used tips in visual estimation (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.26-2.73).

CONCLUSION

Trained participants had more required knowledge and they used visual estimation tips more frequently than participants who had not been trained in the visual estimation method. This study provides new evidence for the importance of training clinical staff members to use the visual estimation method appropriately and makes suggestions to improve the validity of the visual estimation method.