Solving the wicked problem of hospital malnutrition

Developing and validating a novel staff questionnaire to identify barriers and enablers to nutrition and mealtime care on hospital wards

AIMS

Improving hospital nutrition and mealtime care is complex and often requires multifaceted interventions and implementation strategies to change how staff, wards and systems operate. This study aimed to develop and validate a staff questionnaire to identify multilevel barriers and enablers to optimal nutrition and mealtime care on hospital wards, to inform and evaluate local quality improvement.

METHODS

Literature review, multidisciplinary focus groups and end-user testing informed questionnaire development and establishment of content and face validity. To determine the construct validity, the questionnaire was administered to ward staff working in five wards across two facilities (acute hospital, rehabilitation unit). Exploratory factor analysis was used to estimate the number of factors and to guide decisions about whether to retain or reject individual items. Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 138 staff, with most respondents being nurses (57%) and working in the acute care facility (76%). Exploratory factor analysis supported construct validity of four of the original seven subscales. The final questionnaire consisted of 17 items and 4 sub sub-scales related to (1) Personal Staff Role; (2) Food Service; (3) Organisational Support, and (4) Family Involvement; each sub-scale demonstrated good reliability with Cronbach's alpha values all >0.70.

CONCLUSION

This novel and brief questionnaire shows good reliability and preliminary evidence of construct validity in this small sample. It provides a potentially useful instrument to identify barriers and enablers to nutrition and mealtime care from the staff perspective and inform where improvement efforts should be focused.

Are Malnourished Inpatients Treated by Dietitians Active Participants in Their Nutrition Care? Findings of an Exploratory Study of Patient-Reported Measures across Nine Australian Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Inpatient malnutrition is a key determinant of adverse patient and healthcare outcomes. The engagement of patients as active participants in nutrition care processes that support informed consent, care planning and shared decision making is recommended and has expected benefits. This study applied patient-reported measures to identify the proportion of malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians that reported engagement in key nutrition care processes.

METHODS

A subset analysis of a multisite malnutrition audit limited to patients with diagnosed malnutrition who had at least one dietitian chart entry and were able to respond to patient-reported measurement questions.

RESULTS

Data were available for 71 patients across nine Queensland hospitals. Patients were predominantly older adults (median 81 years, IQR 15) and female (n = 46) with mild/moderate (n = 50) versus severe (n = 17) or unspecified severity (n = 4) malnutrition. The median length of stay at the time of audit was 7 days (IQR 13). More than half of the patients included had two or more documented dietitian reviews. Nearly all patients (n = 68) received at least one form of nutrition support. A substantial number of patients reported not receiving a malnutrition diagnosis (n = 37), not being provided information about malnutrition (n = 30), or not having a plan for ongoing nutrition care or follow-up (n = 31). There were no clinically relevant trends between patient-reported measures and the number of dietitian reviews or severity of malnutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians across multiple hospitals almost always receive nutritional support. Urgent attention is required to identify why these same patients do not routinely report receiving malnutrition diagnostic advice, receiving information about being at risk of malnutrition, and having a plan for ongoing nutrition care, regardless of how many times they are seen by dietitians.

Nutritional Care of the Older Patient with Fragility Fracture: Opportunities for Systematised, Interdisciplinary Approaches Across Acute Care, Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Settings

Nutritional care of the older patient with fragility fracture is complex. Diagnostic difficulties, multi-morbidities and interdependencies and social complexities all contribute to the wicked problem of malnutrition. Whilst many settings have attempted to address malnutrition through highly specialised care, increasing evidence supports the role of systematised, interdisciplinary approaches across acute care, rehabilitation and secondary prevention settings. Consequently, this chapter is devoted to highlighting why a SIMPLE approach to malnutrition should underpin the nutritional care of the older patient with fragility fracture, regardless of setting or healthcare provider.

S Screen for nutrition risk

I Interdisciplinary assessment

M Make the diagnosis (es)

P Plan with the patient

L impLement interventions

E Evaluate ongoing care requirements

Mealtime care and dietary intake in older psychiatric hospital inpatient: A multiple case study

AIMS

To investigate the energy and protein adequacy of meals and dietary intake of older psychiatric inpatients and describe patient and mealtime factors potentially influencing intake.

DESIGN

Multiple case studies.

METHODS

Psychiatric inpatients aged 65 years and older, admitted to a single mental health ward during the 6-week study period (April-May 2019) were eligible for inclusion. Dietary intake was observed for two consecutive days each week (minimum four observation days). Visual plate waste methods were used to estimate patients' dietary intake at mealtimes, with energy and protein intake calculated using known food composition data and compared with estimated requirements. Medical records were reviewed weekly to collect information on potential factors related to intake and mealtime care. Data from all sources were first summarized in a case record for within-case analysis using descriptive statistics, followed by cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

Eight participants (five men, age 67-90 years, two underweight and one overweight, and four requiring some mealtime assistance) had 5-12 days of observation data recorded. Three met their estimated daily energy and protein requirements throughout the study period, while the remaining five participants did not. The main barriers identified as contributing to insufficient energy and protein intake were as follows: missing meals (asleep and treatment); inadequate food provided (insufficiency of the standard hospital menu); and need for increased mealtime assistance.

CONCLUSION

Poor dietary intake may be common among older psychiatric patients, suggesting that they may also need nursing and multidisciplinary nutrition care interventions shown to effectively prevent and treat malnutrition in other older inpatient groups.

IMPACT

Older psychiatric patients experience similar nutrition and mealtime issues to other older inpatients. This study highlights the need for nurses and the multidisciplinary team to ensure patients order and receive adequate food, especially when they miss meals and that they receive proactive mealtime assistance.

Trends and Novel Research in Hospital Nutrition Care: A Narrative Review of Leading Clinical Nutrition Journals

Hospital malnutrition is a longstanding problem that continues to be underrecognized and undertreated. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize novel, solution-focused, recent research or commentary to update providers on the prevention of iatrogenic malnutrition as well as the detection and treatment of hospital malnutrition. A narrative review was completed using the top 11 clinically relevant nutrition journals. Of the 13,850 articles and editorials published in these journals between 2013 and 2019, 511 were related to hospital malnutrition. A duplicate review was used to select (n = 108) and extract key findings from articles and editorials. Key criteria for selection were population of interest (adult hospital patients, no specific diagnostic group), solution-focused, and novel perspectives. Articles were categorized (6 classified in >1 category) as Screening and Assessment (n = 17), Standard (n = 25), Advanced (n = 12) and Specialized Nutrition Care (n = 8), Transitions (n = 15), Multicomponent (n = 21), Education and Empowerment (n = 9), Economic Impact (n = 3), and Guidelines (n = 4) for summarizing. Research advances in screening implementation, standard nutrition care, transitions, and multicomponent interventions provide new strategies to consider for malnutrition prevention (iatrogenic), detection, and care. However, several areas requiring further research were identified. Specifically, larger and more rigorous studies that examine health outcomes and economic analyses are urgently needed.

More-2-Eat implementation demonstrates that screening, assessment and treatment of malnourished patients can be spread and sustained in acute care; a multi-site, pretest post-test time series study

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition in medical and surgical inpatients is an on-going problem. More-2-Eat (M2E) Phase 1 demonstrated that improved detection and treatment of hospital malnutrition could be embedded into routine practice using an intensive researcher-facilitated implementation process. Yet, spreading and sustaining new practices in diverse hospital cultures with minimal researcher support is unknown.

AIMS

To demonstrate that a scalable model of implementation can increase three key nutrition practices (admission screening; Subjective Global Assessment (SGA); and medication pass (MedPass) of oral nutritional supplement) in diverse acute care hospitals to detect and treat malnutrition in medical and surgical patients.

METHODS

Ten hospitals participated in this pretest post-test time series implementation study from across Canada, including 21 medical or surgical units (Phase 1 original units (n = 4), Phase 1 hospital new units (n = 9), Phase 2 new hospitals and units (n = 8)). The scalable implementation model included: training champions on implementation strategies and providing them with education resources for teams; creating a self-directed audit and feedback process; and providing mentorship. Standardized audits of all patients on the study unit on an audit day were completed bi-monthly to track nutrition care activities since admission. Bivariate comparisons were performed by time period (initial, mid-term and final audits). Run-charts depicted the trajectory of change and qualitatively compared to Phase 1.

RESULTS

5158 patient charts were audited over the course of 18-months. Admission nutrition screening rates increased from 50% to 84% (p < 0.0001). New Phase 1 units more readily implemented screening than Phase 2 sites, and the original Phase 1 units generally sustained screening practices from Phase 1. SGA was a sustained practice at Phase 1 hospitals including in new Phase 1 units. The new Phase 2 units improved completion of SGA but did not reach the levels of Phase 1 units (original or new). MedPass almost doubled over the time periods (7%-13% of all patients p < 0.007). Other care practices significantly increased (e.g. volunteer mealtime assistance).

CONCLUSION

Nutrition-care activities significantly increased in diverse hospital units with this scalable model. This heralds the transition from implementation research to sustained changes in routine practice. Screening, SGA, and MedPass can all be implemented, improve nutrition care for all patients, spread within an organization, and for the most part, sustained (and in the case of original Phase 1 units, for over 3 years) with champion leadership.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects

BACKGROUND

The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework is an implementation framework that has been developed and refined over the last 20 years. Its underlying philosophy is that implementing research into healthcare practice is complex, unpredictable and non-linear which therefore requires a flexible and responsive approach to implementation. Facilitation is recognized as the central ingredient of this approach, and i-PARIHS now provides a Facilitation Guide with associated tools. This multiple case study of four implementation projects explored how the i-PARIHS framework has been practically operationalized by diverse implementation project teams.

METHODS

A co-design approach was used to elicit the experiences of four implementation project teams who used the i-PARIHS framework to guide their implementation approach. We conducted the established co-design steps of (i) setting up for success, (ii) gathering the experience, and (iii) understanding the experience. In particular we explored teams' approaches to setting up their projects; why and how they used the i-PARIHS framework and what they learnt from the experience.

RESULTS

We found both commonalities and differences in the use of i-PARIHS across the four implementation projects: (i) all the projects used the Facilitation Checklist that accompanies i-PARIHS as a starting point, (ii) the projects differed in how facilitation was carried out, (iii) existing tools were adapted for distinct phases: pre-implementation, during implementation, and post-implementation stages; and (iv) project-specific tools were often developed for monitoring implementation activities and fidelity.

CONCLUSIONS

We have provided a detailed overview of how current users of i-PARIHS are operationalising the framework, which existing tools they are using or adapting to use, and where they have needed to develop new tools to best utilise the framework. Importantly, this study highlights the value of existing tools from the published i-PARIHS Facilitation Guide and provides a starting point to further refine and add to these tools within a future Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS (or "Mi-PARIHS") suite of resources. Specifically, Mi-PARIHS might include more explicit guidance and/or tools for developing a structured implementation plan and monitoring fidelity to the implementation plan, including recording how strategies are tailored to an evolving context.

Process evaluation of implementing Protected Mealtimes under clinical trial conditions

AIM

To evaluate the implementation of Protected Mealtimes and contrast the findings with implementation fidelity.

BACKGROUND

Protected Mealtimes is a systems approach developed to address the issue of malnutrition in hospitalized patients. Previous studies have used a pre--post study design, with no high-quality trials previously undertaken to measure the effect of the intervention.

DESIGN

A prospective, stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial was undertaken October-November 2015. This process evaluation was conducted using qualitative and quantitative methods to explain discrepancies between expected and observed clinical trial outcomes.

METHODS

Qualitative data were collected using focus groups with the healthcare team and contrasted with fidelity data. Quantitative data were collected using attendance lists, audits and observations and analysed descriptively. Concept-driven coding was undertaken using a framework derived from studies citing the Theoretical Domains Framework.

FINDINGS

Staff training in the trial protocol was viewed positively, however, not all staff attended. Staff were generally enthusiastic about Protected Mealtimes with many programme aspects successfully implemented. Limited staffing resources, particularly of nursing staff, hindered implementation. The presence of trial observers affected staff morale by increasing feelings of stress and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Process data allowed challenges for the implementation of Protected Mealtimes under clinical trial conditions to be described. Given our inability to implement the trial protocol fully due to the complexity of the mealtime environment and the lack of efficacy on nutritional intake, alternative approaches should be considered to resolve the problem of hospital malnutrition.

Rationale and developmental methodology for the SIMPLE approach: A Systematised, Interdisciplinary Malnutrition Pathway for impLementation and Evaluation in hospitals

AIM

Changing population demographics, service demands, and healthcare provider expectations suggest that a shift is required regarding how malnutrition care is managed in hospitals. The present study aims to build the reason for required change, and to describe the process used to develop a model for managing malnutrition for implementation across six Queensland hospitals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of approaches to managing malnutrition in Queensland public hospitals, and development of a new model of care (guided by Knowledge-to-Action Framework and qualitative interviews) for testing within a broader implementation program.

RESULTS

Twenty-three surveys were distributed with 21 completed by metropolitan (n = 11), regional (n = 8), and rural/remote (n = 2) settings. Substantial within and across site variance was observed, with care processes focused towards highly individualised, dietitian delivered care. Some early adopter sites demonstrated systematic, interdisciplinary or delegated malnutrition care processes; however, the latter was rarely or never undertaken in eight sites. A model for the Systematised, Interdisciplinary Malnutrition Pathway for impLementation and Evaluation (SIMPLE) in hospitals was drafted based on identified contemporary models and supporting literature. A mixed-methods approach combined survey data with structured interviews conducted in six sites, purposively sampled for maximal variation to iteratively refine the model. Consensus for implementation of the final model was achieved across site clinicians, leaders, and governance structures.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematised, delegated, and interdisciplinary nutrition care activities are realistic in at least some settings. A model is now available to provide interdisciplinary care. Next steps including testing implementation will determine if this interdisciplinary model improves malnutrition care delivered in hospitals.