Nutrition support teams: Institution, evolution, and innovation

The historical institution, evolution, and innovations of nutrition support teams (NSTs) over the past six decades are presented. Focused aspects of the transition to transdisciplinary and patient-centered care, NST membership, leadership, and the future of NSTs are further discussed. NSTs were instituted to address the need for the safe implementation and management of parenteral nutrition, developed in the late 1960s, which requires the expertise of individuals working collaboratively in a multidisciplinary fashion. In 1976, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) was established using the multidisciplinary model. In 1983, the United States established the inpatient prospective payment system with associated diagnosis-related groupings, which altered the provision of nutrition support in hospitals with funded NSTs. The number of funded NSTs has waxed and waned since; yet hospitals and healthcare have adapted, as additional education and experience grew, primarily through ASPEN's efforts. Nutrition support was not administered in some instances by the "core of four" (physician, nurse, dietitian, pharmacist). The functions may be carried out by a member of the core of four not associated with the parent discipline, in accordance with licensure/privileging. This cross-functioning has evolved into the adaptation of the concept of transdisciplinarity, emphasizing function over form, supported and enhanced by "top-of-license" practice. In some institutions, nutrition support has been incorporated into other healthcare teams. Future innovations will assist NSTs in providing the right nutrition support for the right patient in the right way at the right time, recognizing that nutrition care is a human right.

Demonstrating the Value of the Nutrition Support Team to the C-Suite in a Value-Based Environment: Rise or Demise of Nutrition Support Teams?

Nutrition support teams (NSTs) in the United States have had to justify their existence since their inception in the 1970s. Concomitant with those efforts, changes in healthcare financing have challenged hospital administrators to adapt their reimbursement strategies and methods. NSTs, if they are to survive and/or thrive, must be aware of the convulsive currents of change faced by those who determine which programs move downstream and which find their demise on the banks of the stream. This review provides a historical perspective of both the US healthcare financing system and the NST experiences of nutrition clinicians over the past 4 decades. Focused discussions of 5 teams are provided from individual members of those varied NSTs. Additional recommendations from the administrative side of the equation are presented by 3 administrators. Whether NSTs will "rise or demise" depends on many factors. Understanding what those who control the purse strings are seeking in terms of salutary cost and quality outcomes in the current value-based system will facilitate the NST's communication with them. The demonstration of the NST's value is more likely to succeed when bolstered by current evidence-based data as applied to the specific institution. These efforts can be carried out by a formal NST in larger or academic institutions or a "virtual" team with a single individual coordinating the services in a transdisciplinary fashion, employing the acronym ACT (accountability, communication, [transdisciplinary] teamwork).

Nutrition Support Teams: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The concept of a nutrition support team (NST) was first introduced at the end of the 20th century in the US and Europe. Expected benefits include reduced (inappropriate) prescription of (par)enteral nutrition; however, to the authors' knowledge, no recent review has assessed the effectiveness of NSTs. Therefore, this systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of NSTs with respect to the prevalence of adult patients receiving (par)enteral nutrition.

METHODS

Five literature databases were searched and completed by citing searches. Studies on NSTs that were published between 2000 and 2018 in Western countries, applied a comparative design, and contained at least outcome data on the prevalence of (par)enteral nutrition were included. Analyses were mainly descriptive because of high heterogeneity that prevented meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The 27 included studies mainly originated from the UK and US. Only 1 of the included studies was a randomized trial; the other studies had a pre-post design (n = 17) or compared groups in a nonrandomized way. All but 2 studies were performed in acute care hospitals, and 5 studies focused only on intensive care patients. There was conflicting evidence of whether NSTs lead to reduction or increase in patients starting parenteral nutrition (PN); however, weak evidence suggested that NSTs might lead to an increase in the ratio of enteral nutrition to PN use and might decrease inappropriate PN use.

CONCLUSION

Although almost all studies concluded in favor of NSTs, the evidence base is weak and insufficient because of a lack of well-designed studies and successful outcomes.