Jack J. Bell

Barriers to nutritional intake in patients with acute hip fracture: time to treat malnutrition as a disease and food as a medicine?

Inadequate energy and protein intake leads to malnutrition; a clinical disease not without consequence post acute hip fracture. Data detailing malnutrition prevalence, incidence, and intake adequacy varies widely in this patient population. The limited success of reported interventional strategies may result from poorly defined diagnostic criteria, failure to address root causes of inadequate intake, or errors associated with selection bias. This pragmatic study used a sequential, explanatory mixed methods design to identify malnutrition aetiology, prevalence, incidence, intake adequacy, and barriers to intake in a representative sample of 44 acute hip fracture patients (73% female; mean age, 81.7 ± 10.8 years). On admission, malnutrition prevalence was 52.2%. Energy and protein requirements were only met twice in 58 weighed 24 h food records. Mean daily patient energy intake was 2957 kJ (50.9 ± 36.1 kJ·kg(-1)) and mean protein intake was 22.8 g (0.6 ± 0.46 g·kg(-1)). This contributed to a further in-patient malnutrition incidence of 11%. Barriers to intake included patient perceptions that malnutrition and (or) inadequate intake were not a problem, as well as patient and clinician perceptions that treatment for malnutrition was not a priority. Malnutrition needs to be treated as a disease not without consequence, and food should be considered as a medicine after acute hip fracture.

Concurrent and predictive evaluation of malnutrition diagnostic measures in hip fracture inpatients: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background/Objectives:Differences in malnutrition diagnostic measures impact malnutrition prevalence and outcomes data in hip fracture. This study investigated the concurrent and predictive validity of commonly reported malnutrition diagnostic measures in patients admitted to a metropolitan hospital acute hip fracture unit.Subjects/Methods:A prospective, consecutive level II diagnostic accuracy study (n=142; 8 exclusions) including the International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Australian Modification (ICD10-AM) protein-energy malnutrition criteria, a body mass index (BMI) <18.5 kg/m2, the Mini-Nutrition Assessment Short-Form (MNA-SF), pre-operative albumin and geriatrician individualised assessment.Results:Patients were predominantly elderly (median age 83.5, range 50–100 years), female (68%), multimorbid (median five comorbidities), with 15% 4-month mortality. Malnutrition prevalence was lowest when assessed by BMI (13%), followed by MNA-SF (27%), ICD10-AM (48%), albumin (53%) and geriatrician assessment (55%). Agreement between measures was highest between ICD10-AM and geriatrician assessment (κ=0.61) followed by ICD10-AM and MNA-SF measures (κ=0.34). ICD10-AM diagnosed malnutrition was the only measure associated with 48-h mobilisation (35.0 vs 55.3%; P=0.018). Reduced likelihood of home discharge was predicted by ICD-10-AM (20.6 vs 57.1%; P=0.001) and MNA-SF (18.8 vs 47.8%; P=0.035). Bivariate analysis demonstrated ICD10-AM (relative risk (RR)1.2; 1.05–1.42) and MNA-SF (RR1.2; 1.0–1.5) predicted 4-month mortality. When adjusted for age, usual place of residency, comorbidities and time to surgery only ICD-10AM criteria predicted mortality (odds ratio 3.59; 1.10–11.77). Albumin, BMI and geriatrician assessment demonstrated limited concurrent and predictive validity.Conclusions:Malnutrition prevalence in hip fracture varies substantially depending on the diagnostic measure applied. ICD-10AM criteria or the MNA-SF should be considered for the diagnosis of protein-energy malnutrition in frail, multi-morbid hip fracture inpatients.

Quick and easy is not without cost: Implications of poorly performing nutrition screening tools in hip fracture

To evaluate the performance of commonly applied nutrition screening tools and measures and to consider the potential costs of undiagnosed malnutrition in a case‐based reimbursement funding environment.

Dedicated hip fracture service: implementing a novel model of care

Hip fracture is a common clinical problem with historically high morbidity and mortality, and various model of acute and subacute care have been employed. We describe 12‐month results from the first dedicated hip fracture unit in Australia, and compare it with other models of care both locally and internationally.

More-2-Eat: evaluation protocol of a multi-site implementation of the Integrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care

BackgroundNutrition care in hospitals is often haphazard, and malnourished patients are not always readily identified and do not receive the care they require. The Integrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care (INPAC) is an algorithm designed to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of malnutrition in medical and surgical patients. More-2-Eat is an evaluation of the implementation of INPAC care activities (e.g. screening) in five diverse medical units from different hospitals in Canada. The primary purpose is to understand how tailored implementation affects INPAC uptake and factors that impact this implementation. The principal outcome is a toolkit that can provide guidance to others.MethodsThis participatory action research uses a before-after time series design to address several research questions focused on implementation and uptake of INPAC (e.g., Does the implementation of INPAC improve the detection of malnutrition? Do nutrition care related knowledge, attitudes and practices scores of unit staff change with the implementation of INPAC?). A six-month developmental phase where baseline data were collected is followed by a twelve-month implementation phase and a three-month sustainability phase. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected concurrently, and to address key research questions, these data are merged. Quantitative data are collected on-site by trained local dietitians and include chart audits of nutrition care practices and a more detailed assessment of recruited patients on quality of life, disability, frailty, food intake and barriers to food intake. Thirty-day post discharge follow up for these patients occurs by researchers via a telephone interview at three time points within baseline and implementation phases, to ascertain the same and other outcomes (e.g. readmission to hospital). Qualitative data include focus groups and key informant interviews completed by researchers, monthly teleconferences among the sites and site-completed forms that track implementation activities. Resource utilization of dietitian time for various care activities (e.g. assessment) and staff time to assist patients at mealtimes is also collected.DiscussionMore-2-Eat provides an example of how implementation can be tailored when a care algorithm is embedded into routine practice. The project also highlights important learning points with respect to data collection and techniques to support implementation.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800304 June 7, 2016.

Developing and evaluating interventions that are applicable and relevant to inpatients and those who care for them; a multiphase, pragmatic action research approach

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials may be of limited use to evaluate the multidisciplinary and multimodal interventions required to effectively treat complex patients in routine clinical practice; pragmatic action research approaches may provide a suitable alternative.MethodsA multiphase, pragmatic, action research based approach was developed to identify and overcome barriers to nutritional care in patients admitted to a metropolitan hospital hip-fracture unit.ResultsFour sequential action research cycles built upon baseline data including 614 acute hip-fracture inpatients and 30 purposefully sampled clinicians. Reports from Phase I identified barriers to nutrition screening and assessment. Phase II reported post-fracture protein-energy intakes and intake barriers. Phase III built on earlier results; an explanatory mixed-methods study expanded and explored additional barriers and facilitators to nutritional care. Subsequent changes to routine clinical practice were developed and implemented by the treating team between Phase III and IV. These were implemented as a new multidisciplinary, multimodal nutritional model of care. A quasi-experimental controlled, ‘before-and-after’ study was then used to compare the new model of care with an individualised nutritional care model. Engagement of the multidisciplinary team in a multiphase, pragmatic action research intervention doubled energy and protein intakes, tripled return home discharge rates, and effected a 75% reduction in nutritional deterioration during admission in a reflective cohort of hip-fracture inpatients.ConclusionsThis approach allowed research to be conducted as part of routine clinical practice, captured a more representative patient cohort than previously reported studies, and facilitated exploration of barriers and engagement of the multidisciplinary healthcare workers to identify and implement practical solutions. This study demonstrates substantially different findings to those previously reported, and is the first to demonstrate that multidisciplinary, multimodal nutrition care reduces intake barriers, delivers a higher proportional increase in protein and energy intake compared with baseline than other published intervention studies, and improves patient outcomes when compared with individualised nutrition care. The findings are considered highly relevant to clinical practice and have high translation validity. The authors strongly encourage the development of similar study designs to investigate complex health problems in elderly, multi-morbid patient populations as a way to evaluate and change clinical practice.

General versus spinal anaesthesia and postoperative delirium in an orthogeriatric population.

Postoperative delirium is common among elderly hip surgery patients. We aimed to pragmatically evaluate whether type of anaesthesia influenced postoperative delirium in an orthogeriatric population following hip fracture.

Effects of Anticoagulants on Outcome of Femoral Neck Fracture Surgery

Purpose. To review records of 330 patients who underwent surgery for femoral neck fractures with or without preoperative anticoagulation therapy. Methods. Medical records of 235 women and 95 men aged 48 to 103 years (mean, 81.6; standard deviation [SD], 13.1) who underwent surgery for femoral neck fractures with or without preoperative anticoagulation therapy were reviewed. 30 patients were on warfarin, 105 on aspirin, 28 on clopidogrel, and 167 were controls. The latter 3 groups were combined as the non-warfarin group and compared with the warfarin group. Hospital mortality, time from admission to surgery, length of hospital stay, return to theatre, and postoperative complications (wound infection, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism) were assessed. Results. The warfarin and control groups were significantly younger than the clopidogrel and aspirin groups (80.8 vs. 80.0 vs. 84.2 vs. 83.7 years, respectively, p<0.05). 81% of the patients underwent surgery within 48 hours of admission. The overall mean time from admission to surgery was 1.8 days; it was longer in the warfarin than the aspirin, clopidogrel, and control groups (3.3 vs. 1.8 vs. 1.6 vs. 1.6 days, respectively, p<0.001). The mean length of hospital stay was 17.5 (SD, 9.6; range, 3–54) days. The overall hospital mortality was 3.9%; it was 6.7% in the warfarin group, 3.8% in the aspirin group, 3.6% in the clopidogrel group, and 3.6% in the control group (p=0.80). Four patients returned to theatre for surgery: one in the warfarin group for washout of a haematoma, 2 in the aspirin group for repositioning of a mal-fixation and for debridement of wound infection, and one in the control group for debridement of wound infection. The warfarin group did not differ significantly from non-warfarin group in terms of postoperative complication rate (6.7% vs. 2.7%, p=0.228) and the rate of return to theatre (3.3% vs. 1%, p=0.318). Conclusion. It is safe to continue aspirin and clopidogrel prior to surgical treatment for femoral neck fracture. The risk of delaying surgery outweighs the peri-operative bleeding risk.

Rationale and developmental methodology for the SIMPLE approach: A Systematised, Interdisciplinary Malnutrition Pathway for impLementation and Evaluation in hospitals: The SIMPLE approach to managing malnutrition

AIM Changing population demographics, service demands, and healthcare provider expectations suggest that a shift is required regarding how malnutrition care is managed in hospitals. The present study aims to build the reason for required change, and to describe the process used to develop a model for managing malnutrition for implementation across six Queensland hospitals. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of approaches to managing malnutrition in Queensland public hospitals, and development of a new model of care (guided by Knowledge-to-Action Framework and qualitative interviews) for testing within a broader implementation program. RESULTS Twenty-three surveys were distributed with 21 completed by metropolitan (n = 11), regional (n = 8), and rural/remote (n = 2) settings. Substantial within and across site variance was observed, with care processes focused towards highly individualised, dietitian delivered care. Some early adopter sites demonstrated systematic, interdisciplinary or delegated malnutrition care processes; however, the latter was rarely or never undertaken in eight sites. A model for the Systematised, Interdisciplinary Malnutrition Pathway for impLementation and Evaluation (SIMPLE) in hospitals was drafted based on identified contemporary models and supporting literature. A mixed-methods approach combined survey data with structured interviews conducted in six sites, purposively sampled for maximal variation to iteratively refine the model. Consensus for implementation of the final model was achieved across site clinicians, leaders, and governance structures. CONCLUSIONS Systematised, delegated, and interdisciplinary nutrition care activities are realistic in at least some settings. A model is now available to provide interdisciplinary care. Next steps including testing implementation will determine if this interdisciplinary model improves malnutrition care delivered in hospitals.

Update on the Integrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care (INPAC): post implementation tailoring and toolkit to support practice improvements

The Integrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care (INPAC) is an evidence and consensus based pathway developed to guide health care professionals in the prevention, detection, and treatment of malnutrition in medical and surgical patients. From 2015 to 2017, the More-2-Eat implementation project (M2E) used a participatory action research approach to determine the feasibility, and evaluate the implementation of INPAC in 5 hospital units across Canada. Based on the findings of M2E and consensus with M2E stakeholders, updates have been made to INPAC to enhance feasibility in Canadian hospitals. The learnings from M2E have been converted into an online toolkit that outlines how to implement the key steps within INPAC. The aim of this short report is to highlight the updated version of INPAC, and introduce the implementation toolkit that was used to support practice improvements towards this standard.