Improving Post-procedure Outcomes With Clinical Care Pathway for Enteral Access

Our health system introduced an enteral access clinical pathway (EACP) hoping to increase nutritionist consults and decrease presentation to the Emergency Department, readmission to the hospital, and overall hospital length of stay. We followed patients with short-term access (STA), longterm access (LTA), and short-long-term conversions (SLT) seen in the six months prior to the EACP launch (baseline group) and the six months after (performance group). The baseline cohort consisted of 2,553 patients and the performance cohort of 2,419 patients. Those in the performance group were more likely to receive a nutrition consult (52.4% vs 48.0%, P < .01), less likely to re-present to the ED (31.9% vs 42.6%, P < .001), and less likely to be readmitted to the hospital (31.0% vs 41.6%, P < .001. These findings suggest that the EACP may increase the likelihood of both expert-driven nutritional support and effective discharge planning for hospitalized patients.

Nutritional intake in the critically ill: Improving practice through research

Enteral feeding is the preferred method of nutritional support in the critically ill; however, evidence suggests that many critically ill patients do not meet their nutritional goals. The implementation of enteral feeding protocols has improved nutritional delivery, although protocols can be widely variable. Similarly, enteral feeding related nursing practice is also inconsistent within and between intensive care units (ICUs). These variations in enteral feeding practice can be linked to the shortage of reliable and valid research into the many issues associated with the effective delivery of enteral nutrition. In the absence of a strong research tradition and practice, rituals are embraced and rarely challenged, further contributing to the wide variations in enteral feeding practice. Of particular importance are practice issues related to the commencement of enteral feeding and the assessment of feeding tolerance. This article seeks to review the literature related to commencing enteral feeding, with particular reference to the suitability of enteral nutrition, methods of enteral feeding and adjustment of enteral feeding rates. Issues relating to feeding intolerance, including the assessment of gastric residual volume and the development of diarrhoea, will also be explored.

Effects of continuous versus bolus infusion of enteral nutrition in critical patients

PURPOSE

Enteral alimentation is the preferred modality of support in critical patients who have acceptable digestive function and are unable to eat orally, but the advantages of continuous versus intermittent administration are surrounded by controversy. With the purpose of identifying the benefits and complications of each technique, a prospective controlled study with matched subjects was conducted.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight consecutive candidates for enteral feeding were divided into 2 groups (n = 14 each) that were matched for diagnosis and APACHE II score. A commercial immune-stimulating polymeric diet was administered via nasogastric tube by electronic pump in the proportion of 25 kcal/kg/day, either as a 1-hour bolus every 3 hours (Group I), or continuously for 24 hours (Group II), over a 3-day period. Anthropometrics, biochemical measurements, recording of administered drugs and other therapies, thorax X-ray, measurement of abdominal circumference, monitoring of gastric residue, and clinical and nutritional assessments were performed at least once daily. The principal measured outcomes of this protocol were frequency of abdominal distention and pulmonary aspiration, and efficacy in supplying the desired amount of nutrients.

RESULTS

Nearly half of the total population (46.4%) exhibited high gastric residues on at least 1 occasion, but only 1 confirmed episode of pulmonary aspiration occurred (3.6%). Both groups displayed a moderate number of complications, without differences. Food input during the first day was greater in Group II (approximately 20% difference), but by the third day, both groups displayed similarly small deficits in total furnished volume of about 10%, when compared with the prescribed diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Both administration modalities permitted practical and effective administration of the diet with frequent registered abnormalities but few clinically significant problems. The two groups were similar in this regard, without statistical differences, probably because of meticulous technique, careful monitoring, strict patient matching, and conservative amounts of diet employed in both situations. Further studies with additional populations, diagnostic groups, and dietetic prescriptions should be performed in order to elucidate the differences between these commonly used feeding modalities.