4.5 Article

Factors predicting adherence to the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 301-307

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2007.08.004

Keywords

clinical practice guidelines; guideline adherence; nutrition support; enteral nutrition; critical care

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research Training Program in Digestive Diseases

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine factors that are associated with adherence to the Canadian nutrition support clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Materials and Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational cohort Study of nutrition support practices in 58 intensive care units (ICUs) across Canada, grouped into 50 clusters. Adequacy of enteral nutrition (EN) (energy received from EN divided by energy prescribed by the dietitian x 100), was used as a marker of adherence to the guidelines. We applied hierarchical modeling techniques to examine the impact of various hospital, ICU, and patient factors oil EN adequacy. Results: The overall average EN adequacy was 51.3% (SE, 1.8%). In a multiple regression analysis, after adjusting for varying days of observation, hospital type (academic 54.3% vs community 45.2%, P < .001), admission category of the patient (medical 60.2% VS Surgical 39.2%, P < .001), and sex of the patient (male 46.5% vs female 52.8%, P < .001) were found to be significant predictors of EN adequacy and adherence to the Canadian nutrition support CPGs. Conclusions: Specific hospital, ICU, and patient characteristics influence adherence to the Canadian nutrition support CPGs. Further research is required to illuminate the mechanisms by which female and surgical patients and community hospitals lead to lower guideline adherence. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available