Resources to Support Decision-Making Regarding End-of-Life Nutrition Care in Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review

Resources are needed to aid healthcare providers and families in making end-of-life nutrition care decisions for residents living in long-term care settings. This scoping review aimed to explore what is reported in the literature about resources to support decision-making at the end of life in long-term care. Four databases were searched for research published from 2003 to June 2023. Articles included peer-reviewed human studies published in the English language that reported resources to support decision-making about end-of-life nutrition in long-term care settings. In total, 15 articles were included. Thematic analysis of the articles generated five themes: conversations about care, evidence-based decision-making, a need for multidisciplinary perspectives, honouring residents' goals of care, and cultural considerations for adapting resources. Multidisciplinary care teams supporting residents and their families during the end of life can benefit from resources to support discussion and facilitate decision-making.

Caregivers' decision-making for health service utilisation across the Alzheimer's disease trajectory

Health and social care services can enhance the community experiences of people with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers but making decisions about service use is complex. Using a grounded theory methodology, we explored service use decision-making in 40 spousal and adult children caregivers for people with Alzheimer's disease across the caregiving and disease trajectory. Participants' perception of their initial service interactions influenced their decision-making process and use of services. Difficulties navigating the healthcare system and finding available services also influenced decision-making. Caregivers make decisions to sustain care in the community that change throughout the caregiving and disease trajectory. Two key factors influence service use (a) the goals of caregiving and (b) the practicalities of accessing services. Both factors change across caregiving phases. By expanding our understanding of how caregivers make service use decisions, we can augment future practice to help caregivers access services that can better support them across the disease trajectory.

Enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia

BACKGROUND

The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).  Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.

Views of Registered Dietitians Compared to Speech-Language Pathologists on Artificial Nutrition and Hydration at the End of Life

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare the knowledge and opinions of registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) about artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in a terminal illness. Beliefs of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) were also considered and compared against RDN data.

METHODS

This is a descriptive analysis utilizing survey responses from RDNs and SLPs regarding ANH in a case study patient with advanced dementia.

RESULTS

There was a strong belief among RDNs that ANH at end of life (EOL) would improve nutritional status, although a correlation was found between those in favor of ANH and believing it was ethical to withhold ANH at EOL (R² = 0.109, p = 0.002). Responses indicated that SLPs need more education regarding ANH techniques, while RDNs felt ANH would improve aspiration risk. Place of employment, religion and age of respondents were also found to impact beliefs.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians, specifically RDNs, working with patients at EOL need more evidenced-based education on the risks and benefits of ANH. Decisions regarding care of patients at EOL should be void of clinicians' personal bias which may affect ethical treatment in the clinical setting. Further controlled trials must be performed before claims can be made regarding ANH at EOL.

Nutrition and hydration for people living with dementia near the end of life: A qualitative systematic review

AIMS

To synthesize the qualitative evidence of the views and experiences of people living with dementia, family carers, and practitioners on practice related to nutrition and hydration of people living with dementia who are nearing end of life.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative studies.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

Databases were searched for qualitative studies from January 2000-February 2020. Quantitative studies, or studies reporting on biological mechanisms, assessments, scales or diagnostic tools were excluded. Results were synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included; 15 explored the views of practitioners working with people living with dementia in long-term care settings or in hospitals. Four themes were developed: challenges of supporting nutrition and hydration; balancing the views of all parties involved with 'the right thing to do'; national context and sociocultural influences; and strategies to support nutrition and hydration near the end of life in dementia.

CONCLUSION

The complexity of supporting nutrition and hydration near the end of life for someone living with dementia relates to national context, lack of knowledge, and limited planning while the person can communicate.

IMPACT

This review summarizes practitioners and families' experiences and highlights the need to include people living with dementia in studies to help understand their views and preferences about nutrition and hydration near the end of life; and those of their families supporting them in the community. The review findings are relevant to multidisciplinary teams who can learn from strategies to help with nutrition and hydration decisions and support.