This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Miller, C. A. Articles by Madill, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miller, C. A. Articles by Madill, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Are Enterally Fed ICU Patients Meeting Clinical Practice Guidelines?

From Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network.

Correspondence: Address correspondence to: Cynthia A. Miller, Department of Allied Health, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4; e-mail: cindy.miller{at}uhn.on.ca.

Background: The 2003 Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients recommended early EN and maintaining a 45-degree head-of-bed (HOB) angle during EN administration. Current practices at University Health Network have not been examined with regard to these guidelines. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of mechanically ventilated, enterally fed intensive care unit patients meeting the CPG recommendations for early EN and HOB elevation. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving data collection in 2 parts. Early EN data were collected via chart review and HOB data through observation of HOB angle reader. Reasons for not meeting each recommendation were obtained when data were collected via chart review and feedback from nurses. Data analysis was conducted using frequency distributions. Results: Sixty-six percent of patients met the recommendation for early EN. Of those not meeting this recommendation, the most common reason for the delay was hemodynamic instability (28.1%). For the HOB recommendation, 4.9% of patients met the 45 degree recommendation, and 52.5% had an HOB angle between 21 and 30 degrees. The most common reason for not attaining the 45-degree angle was reported as unknown (29.5%). Conclusions: The proportion of patients meeting clinical practice guidelines compares favorably to similar studies. In some cases, patients' clinical conditions or unit HOB angle protocol explained not meeting guidelines. However, there were cases where reasons for not meeting guidelines were unknown.

Key Words: practice guidelines • clinical protocols • EN • nutritional support • mechanical ventilators • artificial respiration • critical illness

Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 23, No. 6, 642-650 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0884533608326062


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?