Dataset Information

Screening, assessment and management of perioperative malnutrition: a survey of UK practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Perioperative malnutrition is common and is associated with increased mortality, complications and healthcare costs. Patients having surgery for cancer and gastro-intestinal disease are at particular risk. It is a modifiable pre-operative risk factor and perioperative clinicians are well placed to identify those at risk and instigate interventions shown to improve outcome. Thus, we conducted a survey of Perioperative Medicine Leads with the aim of assessing the current provision of nutritional screening and intervention pathways in the UK.

Methods

Perioperative Medicine Leads registered with the Royal College of Anaesthetists were asked to complete an online survey exploring current practice in screening, assessment and management of malnutrition in the perioperative period. The survey included a mixture of open and closed questions, graded response questions and options for free text. Where a response was not received, departments were phoned directly and e-mails sent to non-responders.

Results

We received 121 completed questionnaires from 167 Perioperative Medicine Leads (response rate of 72.5%). Seventy respondents (57.9%) reported using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool to screen patients; however, only 61 (50.4%) referred patients at nutritional risk onto a dietitian. Sixty (49.6%) lacked confidence in local ability to identify and manage malnutrition perioperatively, with 28 (23.1%) reporting having a structured pathway for managing malnourished patients. One hundred eleven respondents (91.7%) agreed that malnutrition impacts on quality of life after surgery and 105 (86.8%) felt adopting a standard protocol would improve outcomes for patients. Those reporting a lack of confidence in dealing with malnutrition perioperatively cited a lack of organisational support, patients being seen too close to surgery and lack of clarity around responsibility as key reasons for difficulties in managing this group of patients.

Conclusions

Malnutrition in the perioperative period is a modifiable risk factor which is common and results in increased morbidity for patients and increased cost to healthcare systems. This survey highlights areas of practice where perioperative clinicians can improve the assessment and management of patients at nutritional risk prior to elective surgery.

SUBMITTER: Matthews LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in critically ill patients. Although evidence base and expert consensus opinion for management have been summarised in several international guidelines, no specific considerations for critically ill patients have been included. We aimed to establish current practice of management of critically ill patients with new-onset AF. METHODS:We designed a short user-friendly online questionnaire. All members of the Intensive Care Society were invited via email containing a link to the questionnaire, which comprised 21 questions. The online survey was conducted between November 2016 and December 2016. RESULTS:The response rate was 397/3152 (12.6%). The majority of respondents (81.1%) worked in mixed Intensive Care Units and were consultants (71.8%). Most respondents (39.5%) would start intervention on patients with fast new-onset AF and stable blood pressure at a heart rate between 120 and 139 beats/min. However, 34.8% of participants would treat all patients who developed new-onset fast AF. Amiodarone and beta-blockers (80.9% and 11.6% of answers) were the most commonly used anti-arrhythmics. A total of 63.8% of respondents do not regularly anti-coagulate critically ill patients with new-onset fast AF, while 30.8% anti-coagulate within 72 hours. A total of 68.0% of survey respondents do not routinely use stroke risk scores in critically ill patients with new-onset AF. A total of 85.4% of participants would consider taking part in a clinical trial investigating treatment of new-onset fast AF in the critically ill. DISCUSSION:Our results suggest a considerable disparity between contemporary practice of management of new-onset AF in critical illness and treatment recommendations for the general patient population suffering from AF, particularly with regard to anti-arrhythmics and anti-coagulation used. Amongst intensivists, there is a substantial interest in research for management of new-onset AF in critically ill patients.

Project description:BackgroundUltrasound in podiatry practice encompasses musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging, vascular hand-held Doppler ultrasound and therapeutic ultrasound. Sonography practice is not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), with no requirement to hold a formal qualification. The College of Podiatry does not currently define ultrasound training and competencies.This study aimed to determine the current use of ultrasound, training received and mentorship received and/or provided by podiatrists using ultrasound.MethodsA quantitative study utilising a cross-sectional, on-line, single-event survey was undertaken within the UK.ResultsCompleted surveys were received from 284 podiatrists; 173 (70%) use ultrasound as part of their general practice, 139 (49%) for musculoskeletal problems, 131 (46%) for vascular assessment and 39 (14%) to support their surgical practice. Almost a quarter (n = 62) worked for more than one organisation; 202 (71%) were employed by the NHS and/or private sector (n = 118, 41%).Nearly all (93%) respondents report using a hand-held vascular Doppler in their daily practice; 216 (82%) to support decisions regarding treatment options, 102 (39%) to provide diagnostic reports for other health professionals, and 34 (13%) to guide nerve blocks.Ultrasound imaging was used by 104 (37%) respondents primarily to aid clinical decision making (n = 81) and guide interventions (steroid injections n = 67; nerve blocks n = 39). Ninety-three percent stated they use ultrasound imaging to treat their own patients, while others scan at the request of other podiatrists (n = 28) or health professionals (n = 18). Few use ultrasound imaging for research (n = 7) or education (n = 2).Only 32 (11%) respondents (n = 20 private sector) use therapeutic ultrasound to treat patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, namely tendon pathologies.Few respondents (18%) had completed formal post-graduate CASE (Consortium for the Accreditation of Sonographic Education) accredited ultrasound courses.Forty (14%) respondents receive ultrasound mentorship; the majority from fellow podiatrists (n = 17) or medical colleagues (n = 15). Over half (n = 127) who do not have ultrasound mentorship indicated they would like a mentor predominantly for ultrasound imaging. Fifty-five (19%) report they currently provide ultrasound mentorship for others.ConclusionsUnderstanding the scope of ultrasound practice, the training undertaken and the requirements for mentorship will underpin the development of competencies and recommendations defined by the College of Podiatry to support professional development and ensure safe practice.