Amanda Y Leong1, Kristina R Cartwright, Gonzalo Garcia Guerra, Ari R Joffe, Vera C Mazurak, Bodil M K Larsen. 1. 1Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3Nutrition Services Alberta Health Services, Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinicians believe nutrition support is important; however, delivery of enteral nutrition may be delayed or interrupted due to a lack of guidelines or perceived contraindications to administration. The aim of this national survey was to examine the knowledge and perceived barriers among clinicians which prevent enteral nutrition administration to PICU patients. DESIGN: The survey consisted of 23 questions (19 primary and four branching). The survey was validated using a semistructured pilot test by three pediatric critical care intensivists and two pediatric critical care registered dietitians external to the study team. SETTING: The survey was electronically distributed to clinicians in all PICUs across Canada. POPULATION: One hundred sixty-two PICU clinicians, including 96 staff intensivists, eight clinical assistants, 36 fellows, and 22 registered dietitians from PICUs across Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey was administered from January to March 2013. The response rate was 50% (55 staff intensivists, two clinical assistants, nine fellows, and 15 registered dietitians). There was high variability among clinicians regarding reasons to delay the onset of enteral nutrition or interrupt enteral nutrition administration. High variability (> 70% agreement and < 10% disagreement or vice versa) was found for some reasons to delay or interrupt enteral nutrition, including lactates (rising or > 2 or > 4 mmol/L), high gastric residual volumes, CT/MRI scans, and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Sixty-eight percent of PICU clinicians reported no written feeding protocol to be in place. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is high variability among clinicians regarding acceptable procedural and clinical barriers to enteral nutrition administration; this may be improved by a standardized feeding protocol. Therefore, further research must be conducted to provide clinicians with evidence to support their practices for enteral nutrition administration.
OBJECTIVE: Clinicians believe nutrition support is important; however, delivery of enteral nutrition may be delayed or interrupted due to a lack of guidelines or perceived contraindications to administration. The aim of this national survey was to examine the knowledge and perceived barriers among clinicians which prevent enteral nutrition administration to PICU patients. DESIGN: The survey consisted of 23 questions (19 primary and four branching). The survey was validated using a semistructured pilot test by three pediatric critical care intensivists and two pediatric critical care registered dietitians external to the study team. SETTING: The survey was electronically distributed to clinicians in all PICUs across Canada. POPULATION: One hundred sixty-two PICU clinicians, including 96 staff intensivists, eight clinical assistants, 36 fellows, and 22 registered dietitians from PICUs across Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey was administered from January to March 2013. The response rate was 50% (55 staff intensivists, two clinical assistants, nine fellows, and 15 registered dietitians). There was high variability among clinicians regarding reasons to delay the onset of enteral nutrition or interrupt enteral nutrition administration. High variability (> 70% agreement and < 10% disagreement or vice versa) was found for some reasons to delay or interrupt enteral nutrition, including lactates (rising or > 2 or > 4 mmol/L), high gastric residual volumes, CT/MRI scans, and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Sixty-eight percent of PICU clinicians reported no written feeding protocol to be in place. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is high variability among clinicians regarding acceptable procedural and clinical barriers to enteral nutrition administration; this may be improved by a standardized feeding protocol. Therefore, further research must be conducted to provide clinicians with evidence to support their practices for enteral nutrition administration.
Authors: Lyvonne N Tume; Frederic V Valla; Koen Joosten; Corinne Jotterand Chaparro; Lynne Latten; Luise V Marino; Isobel Macleod; Clémence Moullet; Nazima Pathan; Shancy Rooze; Joost van Rosmalen; Sascha C A T Verbruggen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael F Canarie; Suzanne Barry; Christopher L Carroll; Amanda Hassinger; Sarah Kandil; Simon Li; Matthew Pinto; Stacey L Valentine; E Vincent S Faustino Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Lyvonne N Tume; Barbara Arch; Kerry Woolfall; Lynne Latten; Elizabeth Deja; Louise Roper; Nazima Pathan; Helen Eccleson; Helen Hickey; Michaela Brown; Anne Beissel; Izabela Andrzejewska; Chris Gale; Frédéric V Valla; Jon Dorling Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Lyvonne N Tume; Anna Bickerdike; Lynne Latten; Simon Davies; Madeleine H Lefèvre; Gaëlle W Nicolas; Frédéric V Valla Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.183