Melissa K Batchelor-Murphy1, Eleanor S McConnell1, Elaine J Amella2, Ruth A Anderson3, Connie W Bales4, Susan Silva1, Angel Barnes1, Cornelia Beck5, Cathleen S Colon-Emeric6. 1. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina. 2. College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. University of North Carolina School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Duke University Medical Center/Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 6. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Nursing home (NH) residents who require assistance during mealtimes are at risk for malnutrition. Supportive handfeeding is recommended, yet there is limited evidence supporting use of a specific handfeeding technique to increase meal intake. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy of three handfeeding techniques for assisting NH residents with dementia with meals: Direct Hand (DH), Over Hand (OH), and Under Hand (UH). DESIGN: A prospective pilot study using a within-subjects experimental Latin square design with randomization to one of three handfeeding technique sequences. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 30 residents living with advanced dementia in 11 U.S. NHs. MEASUREMENTS: Time required for assistance; meal intake (% eaten); and feeding behaviors, measured by the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia (EdFED) scale. INTERVENTION: Research Assistants provided feeding assistance for 18 video-recorded meals per resident (N = 540 meals). Residents were assisted with one designated technique for 6 consecutive meals, changing technique every 2 days. RESULTS:Mean time spent providing meal assistance did not differ significantly between techniques. Mean meal intake was greater for DH (67 ± 15.2%) and UH (65 ± 15.0%) with both significantly greater than OH (60 ± 15.1%). Feeding behaviors were more frequent with OH (8.3 ± 1.8%), relative to DH (8.0 ± 1.8) and UH (7.7 ± 1.8). CONCLUSION: All three techniques are time neutral. UH and DH are viable options to increase meal intake among NH residents with advanced dementia and reduce feeding behaviors relative to OH feeding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents who require assistance during mealtimes are at risk for malnutrition. Supportive handfeeding is recommended, yet there is limited evidence supporting use of a specific handfeeding technique to increase meal intake. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy of three handfeeding techniques for assisting NH residents with dementia with meals: Direct Hand (DH), Over Hand (OH), and Under Hand (UH). DESIGN: A prospective pilot study using a within-subjects experimental Latin square design with randomization to one of three handfeeding technique sequences. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 30 residents living with advanced dementia in 11 U.S. NHs. MEASUREMENTS: Time required for assistance; meal intake (% eaten); and feeding behaviors, measured by the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia (EdFED) scale. INTERVENTION: Research Assistants provided feeding assistance for 18 video-recorded meals per resident (N = 540 meals). Residents were assisted with one designated technique for 6 consecutive meals, changing technique every 2 days. RESULTS: Mean time spent providing meal assistance did not differ significantly between techniques. Mean meal intake was greater for DH (67 ± 15.2%) and UH (65 ± 15.0%) with both significantly greater than OH (60 ± 15.1%). Feeding behaviors were more frequent with OH (8.3 ± 1.8%), relative to DH (8.0 ± 1.8) and UH (7.7 ± 1.8). CONCLUSION: All three techniques are time neutral. UH and DH are viable options to increase meal intake among NH residents with advanced dementia and reduce feeding behaviors relative to OH feeding.
Authors: Rebecca A Abbott; Rebecca Whear; Jo Thompson-Coon; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Morwenna Rogers; Alison Bethel; Anthony Hemsley; Ken Stein Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: H Roeline W Pasman; B Anne Mei The; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Gerrit van der Wal; Miel W Ribbe Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Susan L Mitchell; Joan M Teno; Dan K Kiely; Michele L Shaffer; Richard N Jones; Holly G Prigerson; Ladislav Volicer; Jane L Givens; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa Batchelor-Murphy; Susan M Kennerly; Susan D Horn; Ryan Barrett; Nancy Bergstrom; Lisa Boss; Tracey L Yap Journal: J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2019-05-24