Search

Background: There is a lack of data surrounding the use of therapeutic caffeine among adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs)., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine reported caffeine use and withdrawal symptoms among patients admitted to the ICU to inform future prospective interventional trials., Methods: This study used a cross-sectional survey design, where a survey was conducted by a registered dietitian among 100 adult patients admitted to an ICU in Brisbane, Australia., Results: The median age of patients was 59.8 y (interquartile range: 44.0-70.0), and 68% were male. Ninety-nine percent of patients had daily consumption of caffeine with a median 338 mg (interquartile range: 162-504). Caffeine consumption was self-reported in 89% of patients and was uncovered by detailed identification in 10%. Almost one-third (29%) reported caffeine withdrawal symptoms while admitted to intensive care. Common withdrawal symptoms reported were headaches, irritability, fatigue, anxiety, and constipation. Eighty-eight percent of patients reported willingness to participate in future studies of therapeutic caffeine if they were admitted to the ICU. Preferred methods of parenteral and enteral routes of administration varied by patient and illness characteristics., Conclusions: Patients admitted to this ICU were ubiquitous consumers of caffeine before admission, and one-tenth were unaware. Patients viewed trials of therapeutic caffeine as highly acceptable. The results provide important baseline information for future prospective studies., (Copyright © 2023 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on nutrition delivery over the whole hospital admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are scarce, particularly in the Australian setting., Objectives: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition delivery in critically ill patients admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a focus on post-ICU nutrition practices., Methods: A multicentre observational study conducted at nine sites included adult patients with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to the ICU for >24 h and discharged to an acute ward over a 12-month recruitment period from 1 March 2020. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Nutrition practice data from the ICU and weekly in the post-ICU ward (up to week four) included route of feeding, presence of nutrition-impacting symptoms, and nutrition support received., Results: A total of 103 patients were included (71% male, age: 58 ± 14 years, body mass index: 30±7 kg/m 2 ), of whom 41.7% (n = 43) received mechanical ventilation within 14 days of ICU admission. While oral nutrition was received by more patients at any time point in the ICU (n = 93, 91.2% of patients) than enteral nutrition (EN) (n = 43, 42.2%) or parenteral nutrition (PN) (n = 2, 2.0%), EN was delivered for a greater duration of time (69.6% feeding days) than oral and PN (29.7% and 0.7%, respectively). More patients received oral intake than the other modes in the post-ICU ward (n = 95, 95.0%), and 40.0% (n = 38/95) of patients were receiving oral nutrition supplements. In the week after ICU discharge, 51.0% of patients (n = 51) had at least one nutrition-impacting symptom, most commonly a reduced appetite (n = 25; 24.5%) or dysphagia (n = 16; 15.7%)., Conclusion: Critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia were more likely to receive oral nutrition than artificial nutrition support at any time point both in the ICU and in the post-ICU ward, whereas EN was provided for a greater duration when it was prescribed. Nutrition-impacting symptoms were common., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Four authors (Chapple, Ridley, Marshall, and Udy) hold leadership positions with Australian Critical Care. Chapple and Ridley are Editors, Marshall is the Editor-in-Chief, and Udy is a member of the Editorial Board. Consistent with ACC policies, the authors are excluded from any decision-making processes in relation to this submission. The manuscript was managed from submission through to final decision by Assoc Prof Tom Buckley, Editor., (Copyright © 2023 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Standardised enteral nutrition protocols are recommended in critical care, however their use and safety are not well described in other inpatient populations. This mixed methods study reports on the use and safety of enteral nutrition protocols for non-critically ill adults., Methods: A scoping review of published literature was conducted. In addition a retrospective audit of practice at an Australian tertiary teaching hospital with an existing hospital-wide standardised enteral nutrition protocol was performed. Data on use, safety and adequacy of enteral nutrition prescription were collected from medical records for patients receiving enteral nutrition on acute wards (January-March 2020)., Results: Screening of 9298 records yielded six primary research articles. Studies were generally low quality. Published literature suggested that protocols may reduce time to enteral nutrition initiation and goal rate, and improve adequacy of nutrition provision. No adverse outcomes were reported. From the local audit of practice (105 admissions, 98 patients), enteral nutrition commencement was timely (median 0 (IQR 0-1) days from request; goal rate: median 1 (IQR 0-2) days from commencement and adequate (nil underfeeding), without prior dietitian review in 82% of cases. Enteral nutrition was commenced per protocol in 61% of instances. No adverse events, including refeeding syndrome, were observed., Conclusions: Most inpatients requiring enteral nutrition can be safely and adequately managed on enteral nutrition protocols. Evaluation of protocols outside of the critical care setting remains a gap in the literature. Standardised enteral nutrition protocols may improve delivery of nutrition to patients, whilst allowing dietitians to focus on those with specialised nutrition support needs., (© 2023 Dietitians Australia.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted major challenges with usual nutrition care processes, leading to reports of malnutrition and nutrition-related issues in these patients., Objective: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition-related service delivery practices across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) in the initial pandemic phase., Methods: This was a multicentre (nine site) observational study in Australia, linked with a national registry of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Adult patients with COVID-19 who were discharged to an acute ward following ICU admission were included over a 12-month period. Data are presented as n (%), median (interquartile range [IQR]), and odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval {CI}])., Results: A total of 103 patients were included. Oral nutrition was the most common mode of nutrition (93 [93%]). In the ICU, there were 53 (52%) patients seen by a dietitian (median 4 [2-8] occasions) and malnutrition screening occurred in 51 (50%) patients most commonly with the malnutrition screening tool (50 [98%]). The odds of receiving a higher malnutrition screening tool score increased by 36% for every screening in the ICU (1st to 4th, OR: 1.39 [95% CI: 1.05-1.77] p = 0.018) (indicating increasing risk of malnutrition). On the ward, 51 (50.5%) patients were seen by a dietitian (median time to consult: 44 [22.5-75] hours post ICU discharge). The odds of dietetic consult increased by 39% every week while on the ward (OR: 1.39 [1.03-1.89], p = 0.034). Patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) were more likely to receive dietetic input than those who never received MV., Conclusions: During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, approximately half of the patients included were seen by a dietitian. An increased number of malnutrition screens were associated with a higher risk score in the ICU and likelihood of dietetic consult increased if patients received MV and as length of ward stay increased., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Neurosurgical patients often transition from enteral nutrition (EN) to oral nutrition (ON) as they recover. Implementing a nurse-led feeding protocol to guide this transition may improve consistency of nutrition care and dietitian workload efficiency. This pragmatic study aimed to evaluate the effect of such a protocol on these outcomes and on nurses' nutrition care attitudes, practices and knowledge., Methods: Data were collected retrospectively for 1 year pre- and prospectively for 1 year post-implementation of the transition feeding protocol (TFP). Participants who transitioned from EN to ON were included in the study. Post-implementation nurses in the neurosurgery ward were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire to investigate attitudes, practices and knowledge., Results: One hundred and thirteen participants, 55 pre- and 58 post-implementation, took part in the study. Significantly more patients received transition feeding (TF) post-implementation (58% vs 93%, P < 0.001), there was a statistically significant improvement in the commencement of TF (0 vs 1 day after ON clearance; P = 0.029), and all patients consumed adequate oral intake 1-week post-EN cessation (92.3% vs 100%, P = 0.078). There was no difference in dietetic occasions of service post-implementation (2 vs 1.5; P = 0.204). A 38% survey response rate from nursing staff (n = 15) was achieved. More nurses were found to be initiating TF (P < 0.001) and a majority reported a perceived increase in knowledge and confidence in providing nutrition support., Conclusions: A TFP can optimise the transition from EN to ON by improving consistency and commencement of TF and nurses' confidence and knowledge in overall nutrition care., (© 2019 Dietitians Association of Australia.)

Study Objective: We assess the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin compared with placebo as medical expulsive therapy in patients with distal ureteric stones less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of adult participants with calculus on computed tomography (CT). Patients were allocated to 0.4 mg of tamsulosin or placebo daily for 28 days. The primary outcomes were stone expulsion on CT at 28 days and time to stone expulsion., Results: There were 403 patients randomized, 81.4% were men, and the median age was 46 years. The median stone size was 4.0 mm in the tamsulosin group and 3.7 mm in the placebo group. Of 316 patients who received CT at 28 days, stone passage occurred in 140 of 161 (87.0%) in the tamsulosin group and 127 of 155 (81.9%) with placebo, a difference of 5.0% (95% confidence interval -3.0% to 13.0%). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of large stones (5 to 10 mm), 30 of 36 (83.3%) tamsulosin participants had stone passage compared with 25 of 41 (61.0%) with placebo, a difference of 22.4% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 41.6%) and number needed to treat of 4.5. There was no difference in urologic interventions, time to self-reported stone passage, pain, or analgesia requirements. Adverse events were generally mild and did not differ between groups., Conclusion: We found no benefit overall of 0.4 mg of tamsulosin daily for patients with distal ureteric calculi less than or equal to 10 mm in terms of spontaneous passage, time to stone passage, pain, or analgesia requirements. In the subgroup with large stones (5 to 10 mm), tamsulosin did increase passage and should be considered., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Many factors have an effect on ways students learn, but differences in learning styles may not be reflected in the way they are taught. A small study of the learning styles of 119 students and 13 nurse teachers was carried out as part of a Certificate of Education Course. In addition a short questionnaire was used to determine teachers preferred teaching styles. The data collected demonstrated that the groups sampled did not express a very strong preference for any one learning style, but for a combination of styles as did the teachers sampled. The author concludes that nurse teachers should examine more closely the reasons why they favour one strategy over another. This in turn should make learning more challenging and rewarding for the students and teachers.