| 1. |
- Bellafronte, Natália Tomborelli, et al.
(author)
-
A survey of preoperative surgical nutrition practices, opinions, and barriers across Canada
- 2024
-
In: Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism. - : National Research Council Canada. - 1715-5312 .- 1715-5320. ; 49:5, s. 687-699
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Malnutrition is prevalent among surgical candidates and associated with adverse outcomes. Despite being potentially modifiable, malnutrition risk screening is not a standard preoperative practice. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to understand healthcare professionals' (HCP) opinions and barriers regarding screening and treatment of malnutrition. HCPs working with adult surgical patients in Canada were invited to complete an online survey. Barriers to preoperative malnutrition screening were assessed using the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour model. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using summative content analysis. Of the 225 HCPs surveyed (n=111 dietitians, n=72 physicians, n=42 allied healthcare professionals), 96%-100% agreed that preoperative malnutrition is a modifiable risk factor associated with worse surgical outcomes and is a treatment priority. Yet, 65% (n=142/220; dietitians: 88% vs. physicians: 40%) reported screening for malnutrition, mostly in the postoperative period (n=117) by dietitians (n=94), and just 42% (48/113) of non-dietitian respondents referred positively screened patients to a dietitian for further assessment and treatment. The most prevalent barriers for malnutrition screening were related to opportunity, including availability of resources (57%, n=121/212), time (40%, n=84/212) and support from others (38%, n=80/212). In conclusion, there is a gap between opinion and practice among surgical HCPs pertaining to malnutrition. Although HCPs agreed malnutrition is a surgical priority, the opportunity to screen for nutrition risk was a great barrier.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Cardenas, Diana, et al.
(author)
-
The international declaration on the human right to nutritional care : A global commitment to recognize nutritional care as a human right
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Nutrition. - : Churchill Livingstone. - 0261-5614 .- 1532-1983. ; 42:6, s. 909-918
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Access to nutritional care is frequently limited or denied to patients with disease-related malnutrition (DRM), to those with the inability to adequately feed themselves or to maintain their optimal healthy nutritional status which goes against the fundamental human right to food and health care. That is why the International Working Group for Patient's Right to nutritional care is committed to promote a human rights based approach (HRBA) in the field of clinical nutrition. Our group proposed to unite efforts by launching a global call to action against disease-related malnutrition through The International Declaration on the Human Right to Nutritional Care signed in the city of Vienna during the 44th ESPEN congress on September 5th 2022. The Vienna Declaration is a non-legally binding document that sets a shared vision and five principles for implementation of actions that would promote the access to nutritional care. Implementation programs of the Vienna Declaration should be promoted, based on international normative frameworks as The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Rome Declaration of the Second International Conference on Nutrition and the Working Plan of the Decade of Action on Nutrition 2016-2025. In this paper, we present the general background of the Vienna Declaration, we set out an international normative framework for implementation programs, and shed a light on the progress made by some clinical nutrition societies. Through the Vienna Declaration, the global clinical nutrition network is highly motivated to appeal to public authorities, international governmental and non-governmental organizations and other scientific healthcare societies on the importance of optimal nutritional care for all patients.
|
|
| 4. |
- Cederholm, Tommy, et al.
(author)
-
Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition : A modified Delphi approach
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Nutrition. - : Churchill Livingstone. - 0261-5614 .- 1532-1983. ; 43:5, s. 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND : The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation. METHODS : A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. RESULTS : The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall "agree" or "strongly agree" responses. Thepresence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. CONCLUSION : Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.
|
|
| 5. |
- Gillis, Chelsia, et al.
(author)
-
Patients' perspectives of prehabilitation as an extension of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols
- 2021
-
In: Canadian journal of surgery. - : Canadian Medical Association. - 0008-428X .- 1488-2310. ; 64:6, s. E578-E587
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are evidence-based and patient-focused, yet meaningful patient input could further enhance these interventions to produce superior patient outcomes and patient experiences. We conducted a qualitative study with patients who had undergone colorectal surgery under ERAS care to determine how they prepared for surgery, their views on prehabilitation and how prehabilitation could be delivered to best meet patient needs.METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with adult patients who had undergone colorectal surgery under ERAS care within 3 months after surgery. Patients were enrolled between April 2018 and June 2019 through purposive sampling from 1 hospital in Alberta. The interview transcripts were analyzed independently by a researcher and a trained patient-researcher using inductive thematic analysis.RESULTS: Twenty patients were interviewed. Three main themes were identified. First, waiting for surgery: patients described fear, anxiety, isolation and deterioration of their mental and physical states as they waited passively for surgery. Second, preparing would have been better than just waiting: patients perceived that a prehabilitation program could prepare them for their operation if it addressed their emotional and physical needs, provided personalized support, offered home strategies, involved family and included surgical expectations (both what to expect and what is expected of them). Third, partnering with patients: preoperative preparation should occur on a continuum that meets patients where they are at and in a partnership that respects patients' expertise and desired level of engagement.CONCLUSION: We identified several patient priorities for the preoperative period. Integrating these priorities within ERAS and prehabilitative programs could improve patient satisfaction, experiences and outcomes. Actively engaging patients in their care might alleviate some of the anxiety and fear associated with waiting passively for surgery.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gramlich, Leah M., et al.
(author)
-
Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery : a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system
- 2017
-
In: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central. - 1748-5908. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to have a positive impact on outcome. The ERAS care system includes an evidence-based guideline, an implementation program, and an interactive audit system to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of the Theoretic Domains Framework (TDF) in changing surgical care and application of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) model to analyze end-to-end implementation of ERAS in colorectal surgery across multiple sites within a single health system. The ultimate intent of this work is to allow for the development of a model for spread, scale, and sustainability of ERAS in Alberta Health Services (AHS).Methods: ERAS for colorectal surgery was implemented at two sites and then spread to four additional sites. The ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS) was used to assess compliance with the guidelines, length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Data sources informing knowledge translation included surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other qualitative data sources such as minutes and status updates. The QUERI model and TDF were used to thematically analyze 189 documents with 2188 quotes meeting the inclusion criteria. Data sources were analyzed for barriers or enablers, organized into a framework that included individual to organization impact, and areas of focus for guideline implementation.Results: Compliance with the evidence-based guidelines for ERAS in colorectal surgery at baseline was 40%. Post implementation compliance, consistent with adoption of best practice, improved to 65%. Barriers and enablers were categorized as clinical practice (22%), individual provider (26%), organization (19%), external environment (7%), and patients (25%). In the Alberta context, 26% of barriers and enablers to ERAS implementation occurred at the site and unit levels, with a provider focus 26% of the time, a patient focus 26% of the time, and a system focus 22% of the time.Conclusions: Using the ERAS care system and applying the QUERI model and TDF allow for identification of strategies that can support diffusion and sustainment of innovation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery across multiple sites within a health care system.
|
|
| 7. |
- Jensen, Gordon L., et al.
(author)
-
GLIM Criteria for the Diagnosis of Malnutrition : A Consensus Report From the Global Clinical Nutrition Community
- 2019
-
In: JPEN - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. - : Wiley. - 0148-6071 .- 1941-2444. ; 43:1, s. 32-40
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: This initiative aims to build a global consensus around core diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in adults in clinical settings.Methods: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) was convened by several of the major global clinical nutrition societies. Empirical consensus was reached through a series of face‐to‐face meetings, telephone conferences, and e‐mail communications.Results: A 2‐step approach for the malnutrition diagnosis was selected, that is, first screening to identify at risk status by the use of any validated screening tool, and second, assessment for diagnosis and grading the severity of malnutrition. The malnutrition criteria for consideration were retrieved from existing approaches for screening and assessment. Potential criteria were subjected to a ballot among GLIM participants that selected 3 phenotypic criteria (non‐volitional weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced muscle mass) and 2 etiologic criteria (reduced food intake or assimilation, and inflammation or disease burden). To diagnose malnutrition at least 1 phenotypic criterion and 1 etiologic criterion should be present. Phenotypic metrics for grading severity are proposed. It is recommended that the etiologic criteria be used to guide intervention and anticipated outcomes. The recommended approach supports classification of malnutrition into four etiology‐related diagnosis categories.Conclusions: A consensus scheme for diagnosing malnutrition in adults in clinical settings on a global scale is proposed. Next steps are to secure endorsements from leading nutrition professional societies, to identify overlaps with syndromes like cachexia and sarcopenia, and to promote dissemination, validation studies, and feedback. The construct should be re‐considered every 3–5 years.
|
|
| 8. |
- Jensen, Gordon L., et al.
(author)
-
Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition : A modified Delphi approach
- 2024
-
In: JPEN - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0148-6071 .- 1941-2444. ; 48:2, s. 145-154
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation.MethodsA GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements.ResultsThe final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used.ConclusionConfirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.
|
|
| 9. |
- Nelson, Gregg, et al.
(author)
-
Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Across a Provincial Healthcare System : The ERAS Alberta Colorectal Surgery Experience
- 2016
-
In: World Journal of Surgery. - New York, USA : Springer. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 40:5, s. 1092-1103
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) colorectal guideline implementation has occurred primarily in standalone institutions worldwide. We implemented the guideline in a single provincial healthcare system, and our study examined the effect of the guideline on patient outcomes [length of stay (LOS), complications, and 30-day post-discharge readmissions] across a healthcare system.We compared pre- and post-guideline implementation in consecutive elective colorectal patients, a parts per thousand yen18 years, from six Alberta hospitals between February 2013 and December 2014. Participants were followed up to 30 days post discharge. We used summary statistics, to assess the LOS and complications, and multivariate regression methods to assess readmissions and to estimate cost impacts.A total of 1333 patients (350 pre- and 983 post-ERAS) were analysed. Of this number, 55 % were males. Median overall guideline compliance was 39 % in pre- and 60 % in post-ERAS patients. Median LOS was 6 days for pre-ERAS compared to 4.5 days in post-ERAS patients with the longest implementation (p value < 0.0001). Adjusted risk ratio (RR) was 1.71, 95 % CI 1.09-2.68 for 30-day readmission, comparing pre- to post-ERAS patients. The proportion of patients who developed at least one complication was significantly reduced, from pre- to post-ERAS, difference in proportions = 11.7 %, 95 % CI 2.5-21.0, p value: 0.0139. The net cost savings attributable to guideline implementation ranged between $2806 and $5898 USD per patient.The findings in our study have shown that ERAS colorectal guideline implementation within a healthcare system resulted in patient outcome improvements, similar to those obtained in smaller standalone implementations. There was a significant beneficial impact of ERAS on scarce health system resources.
|
|
| 10. |
- Thanh, Nguyen X., et al.
(author)
-
An economic evaluation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multisite implementation program for colorectal surgery in Alberta
- 2016
-
In: Canadian journal of surgery. - Ottowa, Canada : Canadian Medical Association. - 0008-428X .- 1488-2310. ; 59:6, s. 415-421
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: In February 2013, Alberta Health Services established an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation program for adopting the ERAS Society colorectal guidelines into 6 sites (initial phase) that perform more than 75% of all colorectal surgeries in the province. We conducted an economic evaluation of this initiative to not only determine its cost-effectiveness, but also to inform strategy for the spread and scale of ERAS to other surgical protocols and sites.Methods: We assessed the impact of ERAS on patients' health services utilization (HSU; length of stay [LOS], readmissions, emergency department visits, general practitioner and specialist visits) within 30 days of discharge by comparing pre- and post-ERAS groups using multilevel negative binomial regressions. We estimated the net health care costs/savings and the return on investment (ROI) associated with those impacts for post-ERAS patients using a decision analytic modelling technique.Results: We included 331 pre- and 1295 post-ERAS patients in our analyses. ERAS was associated with a reduction in all HSU outcomes except visits to specialists. However, only the reduction in primary LOS was significant. The net health system savings were estimated at $2 290 000 (range $1 191 000-$3 391 000), or $1768 (range $920-$2619) per patient. The probability for the program to be cost-saving was 73%-83%. In terms of ROI, every $1 invested in ERAS would bring $3.8 (range $2.4-$5.1) in return.Conclusion: The initial phase of ERAS implementation for colorectal surgery in Alberta is cost-saving. The total savings has the potential to be more substantial when ERAS is spread for other surgical protocols and across additional sites.
|
|
