learning objectives understand key components of moving ‘knowledge’ into action list main...
TRANSCRIPT
Learning Objectives
• Understand key components of moving ‘knowledge’ into action
• List main updates of Canadian Critical Care Nutrition Guidelines
Learning Objectives
Critical Care NutritionThe right nutrient/nutritional strategy
The right timingThe right patient
The right intensity (dose/duration)With the right outcome!
www.criticalcarenutrition.com
Lost in (Knowledge) Translation!
Heyland DK, Cahill N, Dhaliwal R JPEN Nov 2010
Knowledge to Action Model by Graham
Knowledge Creation
A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF HIGH-DOSE GLUTAMINE AND
ANTIOXIDANTS IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS WITH MULTIORGAN
FAILURE
The REDOXS study
On behalf of the REDOXS Study Investigators
N Engl J Med 2013;368:1489-97.
1200 ICU patientsEvidence of
Multi-organ failureR
glutamine
placebo
ConcealedStratified by site
R
R
antioxidants
placebo
Factorial 2x2 designDouble blind treatment
placebo
antioxidants
The REDOXS study
The Research Protocol
• Adults (>18)• With 2 or more organ failures related to
their acute illness :– Requiring mechanically ventilation (P/F<300)– Clinical evidence of hypoperfusion defined by
need for vasopressor agents for more than 2 hour
– Renal dysfunction : Cr>171 or <500ml/24 hrs– platelet < 50
Inclusion Criteria
Optimizing the Dose of Glutamine Dipeptides and Antioxidants In Critically Ill Patients:
A Phase I dose finding study
• High dose appears safe • High dose associated with
– no worsening of SOFA Scores– greater resolution of oxidative stress– greater preservation of glutathione– Improved mitochondrial function
Heyland JPEN Mar 2007
Parenterally Enterally
Glutamine/day 0.35 gms/kg 30 gms
Antioxidantsper day
500 mcg Selenium
Vit C 1500 mgVit E 500 mg
B carotene 10 mgZinc 20 mgSe 300 ug
Mortality Outcomes
P=0.07
P=0.049
P=0.02
P=0.02
Note: all P values pertain to GLN vs No GLN; no significant differences between AOX vs. No AOX
Other Clinical Outcomes
• No differences between groups– SOFA– Need for dialysis– Duration of mechanical ventilation– PODS– infections– ICU and Hospital LOS
Post-hoc Secondary Analyses
Adjusted Analysis
• The 28-day mortality rates in the placebo, glutamine, antioxidant and combination groups were 25%, 32%, 29% and 33% respectively.
• Compared to placebo, the unadjusted OR (95% CI) of mortality was Glutamine 1.4 (1.0-2.0, P =0.063),
Antioxidant 1.2 (0.8-1.7, P =0.31),
Both 1.4 (1.0-2.0, P=0.049). • After adjusting for all statistically significant baseline characteristics,
the corresponding adjusted ORs remained virtually unchanged at:
Glutamine 1.4 (1.0-2.1, P =0.054)
Antioxidant 1.2(0.8-1.8, P =0.34)
Both 1.4 (0.9-2.0, P =0.10)
Selected Subgroup Analyses OR (95% CI) compared to placebo P-values*Subgroup Deaths/n (%) GLN alone AOX alone GLN+AOX Overall
363/1218 (30%) 1.40 (0.98-2.00) 1.20 (0.84-1.72) 1.42 (1.00-2.03)Study Setting Region 0.37
Canada 303/1044 (29%) 1.41 (0.96-2.07) 1.14 (0.77-1.67) 1.29 (0.88-1.89)
USA 44/131 (34%) 1.56 (0.51-4.81) 1.43 (0.47-4.38) 3.43 (1.17-10.07)
Europe 16/43 (37%) 0.86 (0.12-5.9) 2.40 (0.39-14.88) 0.89 (0.14-5.48)Baseline Patient Characteristics Admission category 0.52
Surgical 59/255 (23%) 2.16 (0.91-5.15) 1.94 (0.78-4.82) 1.58 (0.67-3.76)
Medical 304/963 (32%) 1.28 (0.87-1.89) 1.08 (0.73-1.60) 1.43 (0.97-2.12)Cancer patients 0.74
No 297/1048 (28%) 1.48 (1.01-2.18) 1.15 (0.77-1.71) 1.42 (0.97-2.10)
Yes 66/170 (39%) 1.05 (0.41-2.73) 1.43 (0.60-3.40) 1.38 (0.58-3.27)Etiology of Shock 0.71
Cardiogenic 74/240 (31%) 1.24 (0.56-2.79) 1.62 (0.75-3.51) 2.19 (1.03-4.67)
Septic 256/826 (31%) 1.43 (0.93-2.19) 1.06 (0.69-1.63) 1.21 (0.79-1.86)
Other/Unkown/None 33/152 (22%) 1.45 (0.46-4.57) 1.45 (0.43-4.86) 1.83 (0.60-5.78)Vasopressors 0.37
<15 mcg/min 162/595 (27%) 1.58 (0.92-2.70) 1.66 (0.97-2.84) 1.50 (0.87-2.58)
>=15 mcg/min 201/623 (32%) 1.32 (0.82-2.13) 0.92 (0.57-1.51) 1.39 (0.87-2.22)Renal dysfunction 0.035
No 216/776 (28%) 0.93 (0.59-1.46) 0.90 (0.58-1.40) 1.14 (0.74-1.77)
Yes 147/442 (33%) 2.75 (1.50-5.03) 2.16 (1.15-4.07) 2.15 (1.17-3.94)OR-odds ratio; CI-confidence interval; GLN-Glutamine; AOX-antioxidants
Conclusions• Glutamine and antioxidants at doses studied in
this study do not improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with multi-organ failure
• Glutamine may be harmful• For both glutamine and antioxidants, the
greatest signal of harm was in patients with multi-organ failure that included renal dysfunction upon study enrollment.
2700 Burn Injury patients R
EN glutamine
placebo
ConcealedStratified by site
Double blind treatment
A RandomizEd trial of ENtERal Glutamine to minimIZE thermal injury
6 month mortality
1400 high-riskpatients undergoingcardiac surgery
R
IV Selenium
placebo
ConcealedStratified by site
Double blind treatment
SodiUm SeleniTe Adminstration IN Cardiac Surgery (SUSTAIN CSX®-trial)
Alive and free of POD
Or Time to freedom from life-sustain
treatments
Knowledge Synthesis
Knowledge To Action Model
Since 1980, 275 randomized trials of nutrition interventions
studying >2000 critically ill patients
Knowledge Synthesis
Knowledge – To- Action Model
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
of 45 nutrition related topics
Study or Subgroup1.1.1 LCT + MCT vs LCT
Garnacho-MonteroIovinelliLindgrenNijveldtSubtotal (95% CI)
Total eventsHeterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 0.94, df = 3 (P = 0.82); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 0.53 (P = 0.59)
1.1.2 Fish oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
BarbosaFrieseckeGrecuWang 2009Subtotal (95% CI)
Total eventsHeterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 0.89, df = 3 (P = 0.83); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.16 (P = 0.25)
1.1.3 Olive oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
Garcia de LorenzoHuschakPontes-Arruda 2012UmperrezSubtotal (95% CI)
Total eventsHeterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 2.14, df = 3 (P = 0.54); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 0.49 (P = 0.62)
Total (95% CI)
Total eventsHeterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 4.19, df = 11 (P = 0.96); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.27 (P = 0.20)Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 0.25, df = 2 (P = 0.88), I² = 0%
Events
8212
13
418
20
24
44
195
32
69
Total
3512151274
13832828
152
1118
10351
183
409
Events
11301
15
422
32
31
41
218
34
80
Total
371215
872
10822628
146
1115
10149
176
394
Weight
13.4%3.2%0.8%1.7%
19.1%
6.6%27.9%
2.8%0.9%
38.3%
6.7%1.9%
26.5%7.5%
42.7%
100.0%
M-H, Random, 95% CI
0.77 [0.35, 1.69]0.67 [0.13, 3.30]
3.00 [0.13, 68.26]1.33 [0.14, 12.37]0.84 [0.43, 1.61]
0.77 [0.25, 2.34]0.81 [0.47, 1.39]0.62 [0.11, 3.41]0.20 [0.01, 3.99]0.76 [0.48, 1.21]
1.00 [0.33, 3.02]3.33 [0.42, 26.72]
0.89 [0.51, 1.55]0.60 [0.21, 1.71]0.90 [0.58, 1.39]
0.83 [0.62, 1.11]
Omega-6 Reducing LCT or LCT+MCT Risk Ratio Risk RatioM-H, Random, 95% CI
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Favours omega-6 reducing Favours LCT or LCT+MCT
Manzanares W, et al. Int Care Med 2013
Ω-6 Sparing Strategies were associated with a reduction in Mortality (RR= 0.83,
95 % CI 0.62, 1.11, P= 0.20, heterogeneity I2 =0%)
Ω-6 Sparing Strategies were associated with a reduction in Mortality (RR= 0.83,
95 % CI 0.62, 1.11, P= 0.20, heterogeneity I2 =0%)
Study or Subgroup1.4.1 Fish oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
GrecuFrieseckeBarbosaSubtotal (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 1.84, df = 2 (P = 0.40); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.63 (P = 0.10)
1.4.2 Olive oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
HuschakGarcia de LorenzoSubtotal (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 0.65, df = 1 (P = 0.42); I² = 0%Test for overall effect: Z = 2.57 (P = 0.01)
Total (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 3.00; Chi² = 5.36, df = 4 (P = 0.25); I² = 25%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.72 (P = 0.09)Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 2.87, df = 1 (P = 0.09), I² = 65.2%
Mean
2.8322.8
10
1311
SD
1.6222.914.4
8.911.93
Total
88313
104
181129
133
Mean
5.2320.5
11
20.413
SD
2.819
12.64
716.25
Total
7821099
151126
125
Weight
50.5%16.4%
6.4%73.3%
21.1%5.6%
26.7%
100.0%
IV, Random, 95% CI
-2.40 [-4.76, -0.04]2.30 [-4.12, 8.72]
-1.00 [-12.07, 10.07]-1.81 [-3.98, 0.36]
-7.40 [-12.83, -1.97]-2.00 [-13.91, 9.91]
-6.47 [-11.41, -1.53]
-2.57 [-5.51, 0.37]
Year
200320082010
20052005
Omega-6 Reducing LCT or LCT+MCT Mean Difference Mean DifferenceIV, Random, 95% CI
-100 -50 0 50 100Favours omega-6 reducing Favours LCT or LCT+MCT
Ω-6 Sparing Strategies were associated with a trend towards a
reduction in Ventilation Days(WMD -2.57, 95% CI -5.51, 0.37, P=0.09)
Ω-6 Sparing Strategies were associated with a trend towards a
reduction in Ventilation Days(WMD -2.57, 95% CI -5.51, 0.37, P=0.09)
Manzanares W, et al. Int Care Med 2013
Study or Subgroup1.3.1 LCT + MCT vs LCT
NijveldtGarnacho-MonteroSubtotal (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 7.57; Chi² = 4.59, df = 1 (P = 0.03); I² = 78%Test for overall effect: Z = 0.67 (P = 0.51)
1.3.2 Fish oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
GrecuFrieseckeBarbosaSubtotal (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 35.46; Chi² = 8.97, df = 2 (P = 0.01); I² = 78%Test for overall effect: Z = 0.28 (P = 0.78)
1.3.3 Olive oil containing emulsions vs LCT or LCT + MCT
Garcia de LorenzoHuschakUmperrezSubtotal (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 21.46; Chi² = 4.90, df = 2 (P = 0.09); I² = 59%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.16 (P = 0.25)
Total (95% CI)
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 10.21; Chi² = 21.87, df = 7 (P = 0.003); I² = 68%Test for overall effect: Z = 1.53 (P = 0.13)Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 0.46, df = 2 (P = 0.80), I² = 0%
Mean
13.816.6
3.322812
32.917.9
17
SD
2.96.1
1.4825
14.4
10.611.2
18
Total
123547
88313
104
11185180
231
Mean
17.415.8
9.282313
41.825.115.2
SD
37
3.0820
12.6
16.37
14
Total
83745
7821099
11154975
219
Weight
19.1%18.3%37.4%
19.4%10.2%
5.5%35.1%
5.2%11.2%11.2%27.6%
100.0%
IV, Random, 95% CI
-3.60 [-6.25, -0.95]0.80 [-2.23, 3.83]
-1.46 [-5.77, 2.85]
-5.96 [-8.46, -3.46]5.00 [-1.90, 11.90]
-1.00 [-12.06, 10.06]-1.13 [-8.96, 6.69]
-8.90 [-20.39, 2.59]-7.20 [-13.47, -0.93]
1.80 [-4.51, 8.11]-4.08 [-10.97, 2.81]
-2.31 [-5.28, 0.66]
Year
19982002
200320082010
200520052012
Omega-6 Reducing LCT or LCT+MCT Mean Difference Mean DifferenceIV, Random, 95% CI
-100 -50 0 50 100Favours omega-6 reducing Favours LCT or LCT+MCT
Ω-6 Reducing Strategies were associated with a trend towards a reduction in ICU
LOS (WMD -2.31, 95% CI -5.28, 0.66, P=0.13)
Ω-6 Reducing Strategies were associated with a trend towards a reduction in ICU
LOS (WMD -2.31, 95% CI -5.28, 0.66, P=0.13) Manzanares W, et al. Int Care Med 2013
PN Type of Lipids
2009 Recommendation
There are insufficient data to make a recommendation on the
type of lipids to be used in critically ill patients receiving
parenteral nutrition.
2013 Recommendation: IV lipids that reduce the load of omega-6 fatty acids/soybean
oil emulsions should be considered. There are
insufficient data on type of soybean reducing lipids
Which Alternative Lipid Emulsion to Use?
• No head to head trials (and not likely to be)
• We analyzed our International Nutrition Survey database to evaluate effect of Alternative Lipids on outcomes.
• Analyzed adjusted for key confounding variables.
Edmunds CCM 2014 epub
Which Alternative Lipid Emulsion to Use?
Edmunds CCM 2014 epub
Which Alternative Lipid Emulsion to Use?
Soybean
Fish Oil
Olive Oil
Lipid FreeMCT
Edmunds CCM 2014 epub
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Knowledge – To- Action Model
Development of Critical Care Nutrition
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition
published initially in 2003 updated 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2013
How to Narrow the Gap?First Define the Gap
International audits of nutrition practice
Objectives of International Survey
Quality Improvement• To determine current nutrition practice in the adult critical
care setting (overall and subgroups)• Illuminate gaps between best practice and current practice • To identify nutrition practices to target for quality
improvement initiativesGenerate New Knowledge• To determine factors associated with optimal provision of
nutrition • To determine what nutrition practices are associated with
best clinical outcomes
Canada: 24
USA: 52
Australia & New
Zealand: 36
Europe & Africa: 35
Latin America:
14
Asia: 41
Colombia:6Uruguay:4
Venezuela:2Peru:1
Mexico: 1
Turkey: 11UK: 8
Ireland: 4Norway: 4
Switzerland: 3Italy: 1
Sweden: 1Spain: 1
South Africa: 2
Japan: 21India: 9
Singapore: 5Philippines:2
China: 2Iran : 1
Thailand: 1
Participation: INS 2013
202 ICUs 26 nations
4040 patients37,872 days
Canada: 69
USA: 126
Australia & New
Zealand: 40
Europe: 51
Latin America: 17
Asia: 52
Participation Across the 5 Years of the Survey : 355 Distinct ICUs
Recommendations: Based on 8 level 2 studies, we recommend early enteral nutrition (within 24-48 hrs following resuscitation) in critically ill patients.
Value of Bench-marked Site Reports
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Tim
e t
o In
itia
tio
n o
f E
N (
hrs
)
Site
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Your site All sites Sister sites
Early vs Delayed Nutrition Intake
Cahill N Crit Care Med 2010
In patients with high gastric residual volumes:use of motility agents 58.7% (site average range: 0-100%)
use of small bowel feeding 14.7% (range: 0-100%)
Need to Understand Local Barriers
Assess Barriers
Understanding Adherence to Guidelines in the ICU:
Development of a Comprehensive Framework
Jones N, Suurdt J, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Heyland DK JPEN Nov 2010
CPGCharacteristics
ADHERENCE
Implementation Process Institutional Factors Provider Intent
Hospital characteristics
-Structure- Processes-Resources
Knowledge Attitudes
Familiarity
AwarenessMotivation Self-efficacy
Outcomeexpectancy
Agreement
ICU characteristics
-Structure- Processes-Resources
- Culture
Provider Characteristics- Profession
-Critical care expertise-Educational background
-Personality
Patient Characteristics
System characteristics
Can we do better with our current feeding protocols?
Different feeding options based on hemodynamic stability and suitability for high volume intragastric feeds.
In select patients, we start the EN immediately at goal rate, not at 25 ml/hr.
We target a 24 hour volume of EN rather than an hourly rate and provide the nurse with the latitude to increase the hourly rate to make up the 24 hour volume.
Start with a semi elemental solution, progress to polymeric.Motility agents and protein supplements are started
immediately, rather than started when there is a problem. Tolerate higher GRV* threshold (300 ml or more).
The Efficacy of Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients:
The PEP uP Protocol!
Heyland DK. Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R78Heyland DK CCM 2013.
* GRV: gastric residual volume
Bedside Written Materials Description
EN initiation orders Physician standardized order sheet for starting EN.
Gastric feeding flow chartFlow diagram illustrating the procedure for management of gastric residual volumes.
Volume-based feeding scheduleTable for determining goal rates of EN based on the 24 hour goal volume.
Daily monitoring checklist Excel spreadsheet used to monitor the progress of EN.
Materials to Increase Knowledge and Awareness
Study information sheetsInformation about the study rationale and guidelines for implementation of the PEP uP protocol. Three versions of the sheets were developed targeted at nurses, physicians, and patients’ family, respectively.
PowerPoint presentationsInformation about the study rationale and how to implement the PEP uP protocol. A long (30-40 minute) and short (10-15 minute) version were available.
Self-learning moduleInformation about the PEP uP protocol and case example to work through independently.
Posters A variety of posters were available to hang in the ICU during the study.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document Document addresses common questions about the PEP uP Protocol.
Electronic reminder messagesAnimated reminder messages about key elements of the PEP uP protocol to be displayed on a monitor in the ICU.
Monthly newsletters Monthly circular with updates about the study.
Tools to Operationalize the PEP uP Protocol
% p
rote
in r
ece
ive
d/p
rescri
be
d
326326
326326
331331
331331
360360
360360
371371
371371
372372
372372
373373 373373
374374
374374
375375
375375390390
390390
Baseline Follow-up
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
p value <0.0001
Intervention sites
% p
rote
in r
ece
ive
d/p
rescri
be
d
p value=0.78
327327 327327
p value=0.78p value=0.78
359359
359359
p value=0.78p value=0.78
362362 362362
p value=0.78p value=0.78p value=0.78p value=0.78p value=0.78p value=0.78
376376
376376
p value=0.78
377377
377377
p value=0.78
378378
378378
p value=0.78
379379
379379
p value=0.78
380380
380380
p value=0.78p value=0.78
404404
404404
p value=0.78p value=0.78
Baseline Follow-up
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Control sites
Change of Nutritional Intake from Baseline to Follow-up of All the Study Sites (All patients)
p value=0.005 p value=0.81
Heyland DK CCM 2013.
Results of the Canadian PEP uP Collaborative
•8 ICUs implemented PEP uP protocol through Fall of 2012-Spring 2013
•Compared to 16 ICUs (concurrent control group)
•All evaluated their nutrition performance in the context of INS 2013
Heyland JPEN 2014 (in submission)
Results of the Canadian PEP uP Collaborative
Results of the Canadian PEP uP CollaborativeProportion of Prescribed Energy From EN According to Initial EN Delivery Strategy
New Collaborative: PEP UP US?
• Want to add a slide here re: this?
Need for a Tailored Approach
Select Intervention(s)
Bridging the Guideline – Practice Gap In Critical Care Nutrition:
A Review of Guideline Implementation Studies
• 14 ICUs in Canada• 60 ICUs in Canada
• 27 ICUs in Australia
Cahill N, Heyland DK
GuidelinesBedside
3 Cluster RCTs
Protocolize/automate careImprove organizational cultureDevelop local opinion leaders Audit and feedback with bench-marked site reports Assess barriers and have interactive workshops with
small group problem solving Implement strategies with rapid cycle change (PDSA)Educational reminders (checklists, manuals, posters,
pocket cards) One on one academic detailing
Practice Changing Interventions
What works best at your site?
(barriers and enablers will vary site to site)
What is already working well at your site?
(strengths and weakness are different across sites)
Vs.
Tailored Intervention:Change strategies specifically chosen to address the
barriers identified at a specific setting at a specific time
• 26 studies of tailored interventions
• Pooled OR 1.52 (95% CI 1.27-1.82), p=0.001
• Variation in methodology
• None in clinical nutrition
Systematic Review of Tailored Interventions
Baker et al Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010
Barriers are inversely related to nutrition performance and tailoring change strategies to overcome barriers to change will reduce the presence of these barriers
and lead to improvements in nutrition practice.
Hypothesis
PERFormance Enhancement of the Canadian nutrition guidelines through a Tailored Implementation Strategy:
The PERFECTIS Study
Study Schema: Pre-test Posttest
Example of Tailored Action Plan
Change in Prioritized Barriers Score
Site Range-26.3% (SD 18.8%)
To-4.6% (SD 28.6%)
Overall Barriers ScoreBefore = 30.5% After = 20.8%
Change = -9.7 %
Change in Adequacy of Total Nutrition
Before = 43%After = 49%
Change = 6% Site Range = -2 to 18%
OPTimal nutrition by Informing and Capacitating family members of best
practices:The OPTICs feasibility study
InvestigatorsAndrea Marshall, RN, MN, PhD
Daren Heyland, MD, FRCPC, MSc
Naomi Cahill, RD, PhD candidate
Rupinder Dhaliwal, RD
Gap exists: best practice & current practice
• Evidence-based nutrition guidelines are inconsistently implemented
• Large scale, multi-faceted interventions have failed to improve nutrition practices & have not improved nutritional adequacy for the critically ill
• Engaging family members to act as advocates for nutrition may be a promising strategy to narrow the gap between best practice & current practice both in the ICU and post ICU
Objectives: Definitive study
Hypothesis
Educating families about the importance of nutrition and having them advocate for better nutrition for their loved one in the ICU will result in better nutrition delivery during critical
illness and in the recovery phase
Evidence for Family Advocacy
• Literature supports family-centered care1,2,3,4
• Families and ICU staff are very supportive of family involvement in patient care. Most patients are also favourable of family involvement in their care1
1. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Willems V, Timsit JF, Diaw F, Brochon S, Vesin A, et al. Opinions of families, staff, and patients about family participation in care in intensive care units. J Crit Care. 2010;25(4):634-40.
2. Cypress BS. The lived ICU experience of nurses, patients and family members: a phenomenological study with Merleau-Pontian perspective. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2011;27(5):273-80
3. Kinsala EL. The Very Important Partner program: integrating family and friends into the health care experience. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 1999;14(3):103-10.
4. Mitchell M, Chaboyer W, Burmeister E, Foster M. Positive effects of a nursing intervention on family-centered care in adult critical care. Am J Crit Care. 2009;18(6):543-52; quiz 53.
Objectives: Feasibility Study
Primary aim: Evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention
designed to educate family members about the importance of adequate nutrition in ICU and during recovery from critical illness
Intervention: Family education session & patient nutrition history
Education session and booklet• Information about nutrition therapy• Nutrition therapy risks, side effects• Initiating oral feeds following EN or PN• How family members can be advocates for the best nutrition practices
Nutrition history (Family member)• Weight loss history• Past diets, food intolerances/allergies, GI problems• Chewing/swallowing difficulties• Eating patterns• Food preferences
Creating a Culture of Clinical Excellence in Critical Care
Nutrition:
The ‘Best of the Best’ Award
Heyland JPEN 2010: in press
Recognition and Reward
Recognition a powerful
motivator of human
performance
Determining the Best of the BestDeterminant WeightingOverall Adequacy of EN plus appropriate PN 10% patients receiving EN 5% of patients with EN initiated within 48 hours 3% of patients with high gastric residual volumes (HGRV) receiving motility agents
1
% of patients with HGRV receiving small bowel tubes 1% of patient glucose measurements greater than 10 mmol/L (excluding day 1; fewest is best)
3
Rank all eligible ICUs by determinantsMultiply ranking by weighting
ICU with highest score is crowned ‘Best of the Best’
2008 Best of the Best
Top 3 ICUs1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
2. Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Canada
3. Regional Hospital A. Cardarelli, Italy
Top 3
Best of the Best 2011
The Team at the Alfred Hospital ICU, Melbourne, Australia
2013 Best of the Best
1. Kingston General Hospital, Kidd2 ICU Canada
2. Hospital General de Medellín, luz Castro de Gutiérrez Unidad de cuidados intensivos , Colombia
3. The Ministry of Health Ankara, Numune
Research and Training Hospital Turkey
TOP 3 Sites
Top 3
Kingston General Hospital
Hospital General de Medellín Colombia
The Ministry of Health Ankara Turkey
And the Cycle continues...
More (and Earlier) is Better!
If you feed them (better!)They will leave (sooner!)