Understanding the Need for Tools and Resources to Manage Enteral Nutrition Intolerance: An On-line Survey

Publication: Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
20 April 2021

Abstract

Purpose: Enteral nutrition intolerance (ENI) is a common complication among tube-fed patients, associated with reduced volumes of nutrition delivered, and may contribute to malnutrition risk. This research aimed to obtain insights about dietitians’ needs and preferences related to tools and resources to help identify and manage ENI.
Methods: An online survey was administered to registered dietitians (RD) engaged in enteral nutrition (EN) management, recruited from a list of attendees at a national webinar. The 16-question survey asked about participant’s experience with ENI and interest in resources to manage ENI.
Results: Of the 219 surveys completed (25% response rate), 86% identified ENI as an issue/concern that interferes with adequate nutrition or hydration for their patients. Ninety-seven percent reported being interested in having tools/resources to manage ENI. The symptoms identified as most pressing to manage were diarrhea (73%), bloating/abdominal discomfort (42%), and nausea (32%). Preferred types of tools were hard-copy resources (70%), algorithms (67%), and web-based instruments (62%).
Conclusions: ENI remains an issue for clinicians working with tube-fed patients and RDs are interested in management tools. These results have implications for the development of evidence-based resources to help improve EN delivery and ultimately may contribute to clinician’s efforts at reducing malnutrition.

Résumé

Objectif. L’intolérance à l’alimentation entérale (IAE) est une complication courante chez les patients alimentés par sonde qui est associée à des volumes réduits d’aliments administrés et qui peut contribuer au risque de malnutrition. Cette recherche visait à obtenir des points de vue sur les besoins et les préférences des diététistes en matière d’outils et de ressources permettant d’identifier et de gérer l’IAE.
Méthodes. Un sondage en ligne a été mené auprès de diététistes travaillant en gestion de l’alimentation entérale (AE) recrutés à partir d’une liste de participants à un webinaire national. Le sondage de 16 questions portait sur l’expérience des participants avec l’IAE et sur leur intérêt pour des ressources permettant de la gérer.
Résultats. Sur les 219 questionnaires remplis (taux de réponse de 25 %), 86 % ont identifié l’IAE comme un problème/une préoccupation qui interfère avec une nutrition ou une hydratation adéquate chez leurs patients. De plus, 97 % manifestaient un intérêt pour des outils/ressources de gestion de l’IAE. Les symptômes identifiés comme les plus urgents à gérer étaient la diarrhée (73 %), les ballonnements/l’inconfort à l’abdomen (42 %) et la nausée (32 %). Les types d’outils de premier choix étaient les ressources papier (70 %), les algorithmes (67 %) et les instruments en ligne (62 %).
Conclusions. L’IAE demeure un problème pour les cliniciens qui travaillent avec des patients alimentés par sonde, et les diététistes s’intéressent aux outils de gestion. Ces résultats ont un impact sur l’élaboration de ressources fondées sur des données probantes visant à améliorer l’administration de l’AE et pourraient ultimement contribuer aux efforts des cliniciens pour réduire la malnutrition.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1
Boullata JI, Carrera AL, Harvey L, Escuro AA, Hudson L, Mays A, et al. ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy. JPEN, 2017;41(1):15–103.
2
Wong A, Banks MD, and Bauer JD. A survey of home enteral nutrition practices and reimbursement in the Asia Pacific Region. Nutrients, 2018;10(2):214.
3
Gramlich L, Hurt RT, Jin J, and Mundi MS. Home enteral nutrition: Towards a standard of care. Nutrients, 2018;10(8):1020.
4
Wang K, McIlroy K, Plank LD, Petrov MS, and Windsor JA. Prevalence, outcomes, and management of enteral tube feeding intolerance: a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary center. JPEN, 2017;41(6):959–67.
5
Malone A, Seres D, Lorde L. Complications of Enteral Nutrition. In: Mueller CM, editor. The ASPEN Adult Nutrition Support Core Curriculum. 2nd ed. Silver Spring, MD: A.S.P.E.N.; 2012. p. 218–33.
6
Bernard AC, Magnuson B, Tsuei BJ, Swintosky M, Barnes S, and Kearney PA. Defining and assessing tolerance in enteral nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 2004;19(5):481–86.
7
Boullata J, Carney LN, Guenter P, eds. A.S.P.E.N. Enteral Nutrition Handbook. Silver Spring, MD: A.S.P.E.N.; 2010.
8
Gungabissoon U, Hacquoil K, Bains C, Irizarry M, Dukes G, Williamson R, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and treatment of enteral feed intolerance during critical illness. JPEN, 2015;39(4):441–48.
9
Blaser AR, Starkopf J, Kirsimagi U, and Deane AM. Definition, prevalence, and outcome of feeding intolerance in intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(8):914–22.
10
Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Wang M, and Day AG. The prevalence of iatrogenic underfeeding in the nutritionally 'at-risk’ critically ill patient: Results of an international, multicenter, prospective study. Clin Nutr. 2015;34(4):659–66.
11
Btaiche IF, Chan LN, Pleva M, and Kraft MD. Critical illness, gastrointestinal complications, and medication therapy during enteral feeding in critically ill adult patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2010;25(1):32–49.
12
Kozeniecki M and Fritzshall R. Enteral nutrition for adults in the hospital setting. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30(5):634–51.
13
Virani FR, Peery T, Rivas O, Tomasek J, Huerta R, Wade CE, et al. Incidence and effects of feeding intolerance in trauma patients. JPEN, 2019; 43(6):742–49.
14
Hopkins B, Donnelly-Vanderloo M, Davis B, and Madill J. Prevalence and management of enteral nutrition intolerance beyond the ICU. In: Abstracts from dietetic research event. Can J Dietetic Pract Res. June 09–11, 2016;77(3): e1–e14.
15
Allard JP, Keller H, Jeejeebhoy KN, Laporte M, Duerksen DR, Gramlich L, et al. malnutrition at hospital admission-contributors and effect on length of stay: a prospective cohort study from the canadian malnutrition task force. JPEN, 2016;40(4):487–97.
16
Jensen GL, Cederholm T, Correia M, Gonzalez MC, Fukushima R, Higashiguchi T, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition: a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. JPEN, 2019;43(1):32–40.
17
Somanchi M, Tao X, and Mullin GE. The facilitated early enteral and dietary management effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with malnutrition. JPEN, 2011;35(2):209–216.
18
Mundi MS, Pattinson A, McMahon MT, Davidson J, and Hurt RT. Prevalence of Home Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in the United States. Nutr Clin Pract. 2017;32(6):799–805.
19
Madill J. Enteral nutrition intolerance beyond the ICU in Canada. [Webinar] Nestlé Health Science Canada. 2016;October 4. [cited 2021 Jan 11] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6KCJsXclzc.
20
Thorpe C, Ryan B, McLean SL, Burt A, Stewart M, Brown JB, et al. How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Fam Pract. 2009;26(1):65–68.
21
Stewart ML. Interruptions in enteral nutrition delivery in critically ill patients and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care Nurse, 2014;34(4):14–22.
22
McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: society of critical care medicine (sccm) and american society for parenteral and enteral nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN, 2016;40(2):159–211.
23
Elke G, Felbinger TW, and Heyland DK. Gastric residual volume in critically ill patients: a dead marker or still alive? Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30(1):59–71.
24
Kuppinger DD, Rittler P, Hartl WH, and Ruttinger D. Use of gastric residual volume to guide enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a brief systematic review of clinical studies. Nutrition, 2013;29(9):1075–1079.
25
Dorner B, Posthauer ME, Friedrich EK, and Robinson GE. Enteral nutrition for older adults in nursing facilities. Nutr Clin Pract. 2011;26(3):261–272.
26
Majka AJ, Wang Z, Schmitz KR, Niesen CR, Larsen RA, Kinsey GC, et al. Care coordination to enhance management of long-term enteral tube feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN, 2014;38(1):40–52.
27
Monroe M and Adams D. Increasing response rates to web-based surveys. J Ext. 2012;50(6):327–343.

Supplementary Material

File (cjdpr-2021-007suppla.pdf)

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research
Volume 82Number 3September 2021
Pages: 121 - 124
Editor: Naomi Cahill Ph.D RD

History

Version of record online: 20 April 2021

Authors

Affiliations

Bethany Hopkins RD, MEd
Medical Affairs Manager, Nestlé Health Science, North York, ON
Janet Madill RD, PhD, FDC
Associate Professor, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Brescia University College, 1285 Western Road, London, ON

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cite As

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

There are no citations for this item

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Subscribe

Click on the button below to subscribe to Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research

Purchase options

Purchase this article to get full access to it.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF

View PDF

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Media

Other

Tables

Share Options

Share

Share the article link

Share on social media