Background
Methods
Conceptual framework
Thematic domain and sub-domain | Barrier | Example of potential Item |
---|---|---|
CPG Characteristics
| ● Outdated | Current scientific evidence supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. |
● Vague or complex statements | ||
● Lack of evidence | ||
Implementation Process
| ● Lack of availability of all ICU Team to attend meetings, educational sessions etc. | Not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. |
● No dedicated individual willing to ‘champion’ the guidelines | ||
● Time commitment to develop and implement educational strategies | ||
● Restricted access to computers | ||
● Displacement of posters and pamphlets over time | ||
Institutional Characteristics
| ||
Hospital and ICU Structure | ● Community hospital | N/A (i.e., non actionable barriers) |
● Open structure | ||
● Rural location | ||
● Small hospital and/or ICU | ||
● Lack of geographical consolidation | ||
Hospital Processes | ● Long, slow administrative process | Our ICU Managers/Directors are [not] supportive of implementing nutrition guidelines. |
● Disconnect between priorities of management and clinical personnel | ||
● Organizational constraints on practice | ||
Resources for Implementation | ● Shortage of staff | Not enough nursing staff to deliver adequate nutrition. |
● Limited budget | ||
● Lack of appropriate equipment/materials | ||
● Lack of access to specialist services | ||
Prevailing Culture of ICU
| ● No cohesive, multi-disciplinary team structure | Our ICU team [does not] engage in joint decision-making in planning, coordinating and implementing nutrition therapy for our patients. |
● No multi-disciplinary daily rounds | ||
● Unresolved conflict or disagreements between ICU team members | ||
● Reliance on written communication (e.g., Cardex, paper notes) | ||
● Leadership not physically present on unit | ||
● Poor communication | ||
Provider Intent to Adhere
| ||
Provider Characteristics
| ||
Professional Roles
| ● Circle of influence of nursing staff and allied healthcare professionals (e.g., dietitian) dependent on support of physician and leadership team | I [do not] feel responsible for ensuring that my patients receive adequate nutrition while in the ICU. |
Critical Care Expertise
| ● Junior, novice staff | |
● Locum or casual staff | ||
Educational Background
| ● Clinical training >10 years | |
● Reliance on expert opinion | ||
Personality
| ● Type B personality (i.e. relaxed and easygoing) | |
● Uncooperative | ||
● Laggard/skeptic | ||
Knowledge | ||
Familiarity | ● CPGs infrequently used due to rare clinical condition or narrow case-mix | I am not familiar with our current guidelines for nutrition in the ICU. |
Awareness | ● Conflicting and numerous CPGs on same topic | There is not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. |
● Information overload | ||
● Time required to remain updated | ||
● Poor dissemination | ||
Attitudes | ||
Outcome Expectancy | ● Experience of adverse event from following guideline | Fear of adverse events due to aggressively feeding patients. |
General belief among ICU team that provision of adequate nutrition does not impact on patient outcome. | ||
Self-efficacy (i.e., belief that one does not have the capability to perform the actions required to implement the recommendation [36]) | ● Labour-intensive | My lack of skills on how to achieve goal calories. |
● Complex procedure | ||
● Limited circle of influence | ||
Motivation | ● Inertia of previous practice, especially among experienced, older staff | I am [not] willing to change my routines and habits in order to implement the recommendations of nutrition guidelines. |
● Resistance to change, especially locums, surgeons and non-ICU physicians. | ||
● High cost/work burden associated with following the guideline | ||
Agreement | ● Paucity of evidence supporting recommendation | Current scientific evidence |
● Lack of generalizability to critical care and/or specific patient groups | supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. | |
Patient Characteristics
| ● Poor prognosis | In resuscitated, hemodynamically stable patients, other aspects of patient care still take priority over nutrition. |
● Other priorities of care | ||
● Unstable clinical condition or contraindication | ||
● Surgical patients | ||
● Reconciliation with family preferences |
Item generation
Field test
On-site observational visits
Data analysis to determining the psychometric properties of the questionnaire
Exploratory factor analysis
Internal reliability
Scoring the questionnaire
Aggregating responses to the unit level
Qualitative analysis
Pilot testing
Test-retest
Sample size
Ethical considerations
Results
Field test
Descriptive statistics
ICU#
| Country | Hospital type | Hospital size | ICU structure | ICU size | Response rate n/N (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | USA | Non-Teaching | 361 | Closed&
| 20 | 37/73 (50.7) |
2 | Canada | Teaching | 497 | Closed | 16 | 32/85 (37.7) |
3* | USA | Teaching | 600 | Open^ | 32 | 36/98 (36.7) |
4 | Canada | Non-Teaching | 400 | Open | 13 | 29/73 (39.7) |
5 | Canada | Teaching | 759 | Closed | 30 | 52/80 (65.0) |
Characteristic | N (%) |
---|---|
Sex | N = 171 |
Male | 28 (16.4) |
Female | 143 (83.6) |
Age | N = 172 |
20 – 34 | 75 (43.6) |
35 – 49 | 68 (39.5) |
≥ 50 | 29 (16.9) |
Clinical Specialty | N = 186 |
Dietitian | 25 (13.4) |
Nurse | 138 (74.2) |
Physician | 12 (6.5) |
Other^ | 11 (5.9) |
Time dedicated to ICU#
| N = 173 |
Full-time | 120 (69.4) |
Part-time | 45 (26.0) |
Other&
| 8 (4.6) |
Length of time working in critical care | N = 173 |
0 – 5 | 77 (44.5) |
6 – 10 | 45 (26.0) |
11 – 15 | 20 (11.6) |
>15 | 31 (17.9) |
Leadership role* | N = 171 |
Yes | 53 (31.0) |
No | 118 (69.0) |
Framework domain | Item | Median | Interquartile range | Mode | Range | Don’t know (%) | Missing (%) | Endorsement (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part A: General barriers
| ||||||||
Institutional Characteristics |
1. Overall, our unit functions very well together as a team.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 6.0 | 3 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 96.2 |
Institutional Characteristics |
2. Our ICU team engages in joint decision-making in planning, coordinating and implementing nutrition therapy for our patients.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 93.6 |
Institutional Characteristics |
3. Overall, it is easy for me to openly talk with other members of the ICU team about matters related to the nutritional needs of my patient.
| 7.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 1 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 95.7 |
Institutional Characteristics |
4. In our ICU, implementing best practices, as defined by clinical practice guidelines, is intrinsic to our culture.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 6.0 | 2 – 7 | 2 (1.1) | 1 (0.5) | 93.0 |
Institutional Characteristics |
5. Our ICU Managers/Directors are supportive of implementing nutrition guidelines.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 2 – 7 | 7 (3.8) | 1 (0.5) | 82.7 |
Provider Intent |
6.
Nutrition is very important for my critically ill patients.
| 7.0 | 7 – 7 | 7.0 | 6 – 7 | 2 (1.1) | 1 (0.5) | 98.9 |
Provider Intent |
7. I feel responsible for ensuring that my patients receive adequate nutrition while in the ICU.
| 7.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 5 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 3 (1.6) | 99.5 |
Provider Intent |
8. I am familiar with our current national guidelines for nutrition in the ICU.
| 6.5 | 4 – 6 | 6.0 | 2 – 7 | 10 (5.4) | 0 (0.0) | 67.2 |
Provider Intent |
9. If the recommendations of the current national guidelines for nutrition are followed in our ICU, patient outcomes will improve.
| 6.0 | 5 – 7 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 19 (10.2) | 0 (0.0) | 77.4 |
Part B. Guideline recommendations for enteral nutrition
| ||||||||
Provider Intent |
1. Enteral nutrition should be used in preference to parenteral nutrition.
| 7.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 4 – 7 | 3 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 95.7 |
Provider Intent |
2. Enteral nutrition should be initiated early (24 – 48 hours following admission to ICU).
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 3 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 97.9 |
Provider Intent |
3. An evidence-based feeding protocol should be used.
| 7.0 | 6 – 7 | 7.0 | 2 – 7 | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.5) | 96.8 |
Provider Intent |
4. If a feeding protocol is used, it should tolerate a higher gastric residual volume (i.e., >250 mls) before holding feeds.
| 6.0 | 3 – 7 | 7.0 | 1 – 7 | 9 (4.8) | 1 (0.5) | 60.5 |
Provider Intent |
5. In patients who have feed intolerance (i.e., high gastric residual volumes, emesis) a promotility agent should be used.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 3 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 96.2 |
Provider Intent |
6. Small bowel feeding should be considered for those select patients who repeatedly demonstrate high gastric residual volumes and are not tolerating adequate amounts of enteral nutrition delivered into the stomach.
| 6.0 | 6 – 7 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 10 (5.4) | 0 (0.0) | 91.4 |
Provider Intent |
7. Patients receiving enteral nutrition should have the head of the bed elevated to 45 degrees.
| 6.0 | 5 – 7 | 7.0 | 1 – 7 | 2 (1.1) | 2 (1.1) | 78.3 |
Provider Intent |
8. In all critically ill patients, hyperglycemia (blood glucose >10 mmol/l or 180mg/dl) should be avoided by minimizing intravenous dextrose and using insulin administration when necessary.
| 6.0 | 6-7 | 6.0 | 2-7 | 2 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 94.6 |
Part C: Barriers to the provision of enteral nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit
| ||||||||
Institutional characteristics | 1. Not enough nursing staff to deliver adequate nutrition. | 3.0 | 2 – 5 | 1.0 | 1 – 7 | 2 (2.2) | 30.2 | |
Institutional characteristics | 2. Not enough dietitian time dedicated to the ICU during regular weekday hours. | 3.0 | 2 – 6 | 2.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 38.1 | |
Institutional characteristics | 3. No or not enough dietitian coverage during weekends and holidays. | 5.0 | 3 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 60.8 | |
Institutional characteristics |
4. Enteral formula not available on the unit. | 4.0 | 2 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 4 (2.2) | 50.0 | |
Institutional characteristics | 5. No or not enough feeding pumps on the unit. | 5.0 | 2 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 58.0 | |
Guideline characteristics | 6. Current scientific evidence supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. | 4.0 | 2 – 5 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 13 (7.0) | 46.8 | |
Guideline characteristics | 7. The current national guidelines for nutrition are not readily accessible when I want to refer to them. | 5.0 | 2 – 6 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 7 (3.8) | 55.3 | |
Guideline characteristics | 8. The language of the recommendations of the current national guidelines for nutrition are not easy to understand. | 4.0 | 2 – 5 | 4.0 | 1 – 7 | 11 (5.9) | 38.3 | |
Implementation Process | 9. Not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. | 5.0 | 3 – 6 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 6 (3.2) | 57.8 | |
Implementation Process | 10. No feeding protocol in place to guide the initiation and progression of enteral nutrition. | 4.0 | 2 – 5 | 1.0 | 1 – 7 | 7 (3.8) | 45.3 | |
Implementation Process | 11. Current feeding protocol is outdated. | 4.0 | 2 – 5 | 4.0 | 1 – 7 | 13 (7.0) | 34.1 | |
Provider intent | 12. Delay in physicians ordering the initiation of EN. | 5.0 | 3 – 6 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 65.2 | |
Provider intent | 13. Waiting for the dietitian to assess the patient. | 4.0 | 2 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 6 (3.2) | 48.3 | |
Provider intent | 14. Non-ICU physicians (i.e., surgeons, gastroenterologists) requesting patients not be fed enterally. | 5.0 | 3 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 6 (3.2) | 57.8 | |
Provider intent | 15. Nurses failing to progress feeds as per the feeding protocol. | 4.0 | 2 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 4 (2.2) | 45.6 | |
Provider Intent | 16. Fear of adverse events due to aggressively feeding patients. | 4.0 | 2 – 5 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 48.6 | |
Provider Intent | 17. Feeding being held too far in advance of procedures or operating room visits. | 5.0 | 2 – 6 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 6 (3.2) | 58.9 | |
Provider Factor | 18. No feeding tube in place to start feeding. | 5.0 | 2 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 4 (2.2) | 54.4 | |
Patients Factor | 19. Delays in initiating motility agents in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 5.0 | 3 – 6 | 5.0 | 1 – 7 | 4 (2.2) | 55.5 | |
Patient Factor |
20. Delays and difficulties in obtaining small bowel access in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 5.0 | 4 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 67.4 | |
Patient Factor | 21. In resuscitated, hemodynamically stable patients, other aspects of patient care still take priority over nutrition. | 5.0 | 4 – 6 | 6.0 | 1 – 7 | 5 (2.7) | 68.0 | |
Institutional characteristic/Patient Factor |
22. Lack of agreement among ICU team on the best nutrition plan of care for the
patient.
| 3.0 | 2 – 5 | 2.0 | 1 – 7 | 4 (2.2) | 32.4 |
Factor analysis
Item number | Questionnaire items and new subscale names | Eigenvalue | Variance explained | Loading on Factor 1 | Loading on Factor 2 | Loading on Factor 3 | Loading on Factor 4 | Loading on Factor 5 | Alpha | Alpha if item deleted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subscale 1: Guideline Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
| 10.01 | 47.67 | 0.89 | |||||||
C6 | ● Current scientific evidence supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. |
0.68
| 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.87 | |||
C7 | ● The current guidelines for nutrition are not readily accessible when I want to refer to them. |
0.84
| 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.86 | |||
C8 | ● The language of the recommendations of the current guidelines for nutrition are not easy to understand. |
0.77
| 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.85 | |||
C10 | ● No feeding protocol in place to guide the initiation and progression of enteral nutrition. |
0.54
| 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.87 | |||
C11 | Current feeding protocol is outdated. |
0.63
| 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.86 | |||
Subscale 2: Delivery of Enteral Nutrition to the Patient
| 1.68 | 8.00 | 0.86 | |||||||
C12 | ● Delay in physicians ordering the initiation of EN. | 0.19 |
0.42
| 0.41 | 0.45 | 0.17 | 0.85 | |||
C18 | No feeding tube in place to start feeding. | 0.26 |
0.82
| 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.81 | |||
C19 | ● Delays in initiating motility agents in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 0.19 |
0.78
| 0.32 | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.81 | |||
C20 | ● Delays and difficulties in obtaining small bowel access in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 0.16 |
0.72
| 0.27 | 0.27 | −0.02 | 0.84 | |||
C21 | ● In resuscitated, hemodynamically stable patients, other aspects of patient care still take priority over nutrition. | 0.32 |
0.52
| 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.85 | |||
Subscale 3: Critical Care Provider Attitudes and Behavior
| 1.20 | 5.72 | 0.87 | |||||||
C14 | ● Non-ICU physicians (i.e., surgeons, gastroenterologists) requesting patients not be fed enterally. | −0.24 | 0.27 |
0.67
| 0.31 | 0.04 | 0.83 | |||
C15 | ● Nurses failing to progress feeds as per the feeding protocol. | 0.09 | 0.26 |
0.82
| 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.79 | |||
C16 | ● Fear of adverse events due to aggressively feeding patients. | 0.33 | 0.24 |
0.60
| 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.84 | |||
C17 | ● Feeding being held too far in advance of procedures or operating room visits. | 0.10 | 0.11 |
0.87
| 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.81 | |||
Subscale 4: Dietitian Support
| 1.13 | 5.36 | 0.84 | |||||||
C13 | ● Waiting for the dietitian to assess the patient. | 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.19 |
0.63
| 0.18 | 0.79 | |||
C2 | ● Not enough dietitian time dedicated to the ICU during regular weekday hours. | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.09 |
0.70
| 0.49 | 0.80 | |||
C3 | ● No or not enough dietitian coverage during evenings, weekends and holidays. | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.15 |
0.77
| 0.19 | 0.77 | |||
C9 | ● There is not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. | 0.51 | 0.08 | 0.29 |
0.60
| −0.05 | 0.83 | |||
Subscale 5: ICU Resources
| 1.10 | 5.23 | 0.84 | |||||||
C1 | ● Not enough nursing staff to deliver adequate nutrition. | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.38 |
0.66
| 0.84 | |||
C4 | ● Enteral formula not available on the unit. | 0.31 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.24 |
0.74
| 0.71 | |||
C5 | ● No or not enough feeding pumps on the unit. | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.04 |
0.80
| 0.75 | |||
Eliminated/Reworded Item
| ||||||||||
C22 | ● Lack of agreement among ICU team on the best nutrition plan of care for the patient. | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.42 | 0.35 |
Factor one: guideline recommendations and implementation strategies
Factor two: delivery of EN to the patient
Factor three: critical care provider attitudes and behavior
Factor four: dietitian support
Factor five: ICU resources
Internal reliability
Aggregating responses to the unit level
Site specific barrier score mean ± SD | Variance components | F-test P-value | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questionnaire items | Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | σb
2*
| σw
2#
| ICC^ | ICC (35)&
| |
N
|
37
|
32
|
36
|
29
|
52
| |||||
Overall Barriers | 32.2 ± 26.9 | 31.3 ± 20.9 | 33.3 ± 33.3 | 39.9 ± 35.5 | 26.8 ± 19.0 | 7.67 | 522.66 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.2 |
Subscale 1: Guideline Recommendations and Implementation Strategies | 27.5 ± 28.6 | 38.2 ± 25.0 | 22.4 ± 27.9 | 26.4 ± 21.6 | 21.4 ± 21.0 | 0.00 | 602.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.77 |
Current scientific evidence supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. | 23.8 ± 31.9 | 28.7 ± 34.2 | 18.6 ± 29.8 | 29.5 ± 30.3 | 22.4 ± 26.7 | 0.00 | 908.80 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.6 |
The language of the recommendations of the current guidelines for nutrition are not easy to understand. | 28.7 ± 33.9 | 26.4 ± 34.9 | 18.6 ± 29.8 | 33.3 ± 33.3 | 12.2 ± 27.8 | 46.18 | 998.05 | 0.04 | 0.62 | 0.03 |
The current guidelines for nutrition are not readily accessible when I want to refer to them. | 35.2 ± 35.6 | 31.1 ± 31.5 | 24.5 ± 35.1 | 34.6 ± 35.2 | 33.3 ± 35.5 | 0.00 | 1196.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.71 |
No feeding protocol in place to guide the initiation and progression of enteral nutrition. | 25.0 ± 33.2 | 25.3 ± 34.1 | 31.4 ± 33.3 | 26.2 ± 29.2 | 19.6 ± 28.4 | 0.00 | 984.31 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.56 |
Current feeding protocol is outdated. | 23.8 ± 36.7 | 16.0 ± 29.8 | 19.0 ± 30.6 | 15.4 ± 25.4 | 20.7 ± 26.8 | 0.00 | 891.70 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.8 |
Subscale 2: Delivery of Enteral Nutrition to the Patient
|
33.0 ± 31.2
|
38.2 ± 25.0
|
39.3 ± 27.0
|
54.6 ± 29.0
|
30.5 ± 22.5
|
62.18
|
714.14
|
0.08
|
0.75
|
0.005
|
Delay in physicians ordering the initiation of EN. | 33.3 ± 39.0 | 41.1 ± 28.6 | 43.5 ± 36.4 | 49.4 ± 39.6 | 30.1 ± 29.0 | 29.36 | 1175.27 | 0.02 | 0.47 | 0.11 |
No feeding tube in place to start feeding. | 31.5 ± 39.0 | 24.4 ± 34.9 | 37.0 ± 33.6 | 59.5 ± 34.4 | 26.3 ± 31.9 | 155.32 | 1197.87 | 0.11 | 0.82 | 0.0006 |
Delays in initiating motility agents in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 25.9 ± 37.5 | 35.6 ± 37.1 | 33.3 ± 30.9 | 53.6 ± 36.7 | 24.4 ± 28.1 | 97.41 | 1124.24 | 0.08 | 0.75 | 0.004 |
Delays and difficulties in obtaining small bowel access in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 34.3 ± 37.8 | 48.9 ± 32.4 | 40.7 ± 34.8 | 56.8 ± 33.1 | 32.1 ± 31.6 | 70.09 | 1150.70 | 0.06 | 0.68 | 0.02 |
In resuscitated, hemodynamically stable patients, other aspects of patient care still take priority over nutrition. | 39.8 ± 35.5 | 41.1 ± 33.5 | 41.7 ± 34.2 | 53.6 ± 37.8 | 37.3 ± 35.1 | 0.00 | 1236.48 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.39 |
Subscale 3: Critical Care Provider Attitudes and Behavior
|
27.9 ± 30.3
|
44.7 ± 29.5
|
20.8 ± 26.2
|
31.8 ± 29.5
|
33.0 ± 24.3
|
51.15
|
764.14
|
0.06
|
0.70
|
0.01
|
Non-ICU physicians (i.e., surgeons, gastroenterologists) requesting patients not be fed enterally. | 34.4 ± 33.3 | 60.0 ± 32.0 | 24.1 ± 33.4 | 30.9 ± 33.2 | 32.7 ± 36.2 | 148.80 | 1154.98 | 0.11 | 0.82 | 0.0006 |
Nurses failing to progress feeds as per the feeding protocol. | 22,2 ± 34.7 | 35.6 ± 38.1 | 14.8 ± 25.8 | 27.4 ± 31.5 | 34.0 ± 35.2 | 44.12 | 1115.92 | 0.04 | 0.58 | 0.05 |
Fear of adverse events due to aggressively feeding patients. | 28.7 ± 33.9 | 28.9 ± 34.7 | 23.1 ± 31.7 | 36.9 ± 36.7 | 24.2 ± 30.6 | 0.00 | 1096.86 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.48 |
Feeding being held too far in advance of procedures or operating room visits. | 24.8 ± 34.6 | 54.4 ± 38.6 | 21.3 ± 31.7 | 33.3 ± 36.3 | 41.8 ± 33.2 | 143.22 | 1166.23 | 0.11 | 0.81 | 0.0006 |
Subscale 4: Dietitian Support
|
33.3 ± 37.1
|
37.9 ± 28.0
|
28.1 ± 28.3
|
40.4 ± 25.7
|
23.4 ± 21.7
|
35.26
|
710.07
|
0.05
|
0.63
|
0.03
|
Waiting for the dietitian to assess the patient. | 27.6 ± 40.8 | 34.4 ± 33.3 | 27.8 ± 33.3 | 37.0 ± 33.8 | 21.8 ± 28.7 | 7.73 | 1137.44 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.32 |
Not enough dietitian time dedicated to the ICU during regular weekday hours. | 21.3 ± 33.0 | 34.4 ± 33.3 | 21.9 ± 33.3 | 35.7 ± 38.4 | 11.5 ± 24.6 | 76.09 | 1014.70 | 0.07 | 0.72 | 0.005 |
No or not enough dietitian coverage during evenings, weekends and holidays. | 30.6 ± 38.5 | 52.2 ± 37.8 | 29.5 ± 35.9 | 51.2 ± 34.5 | 32.1 ± 30.9 | 91.75 | 1241.46 | 0.07 | 0.72 | 0.009 |
There is not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. | 27.8 ± 29.3 | 32.2 ± 35.1 | 31.5 ± 31.8 | 36.9 ± 35.5 | 28.1 ± 30.1 | 0.00 | 1011.24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.78 |
Subscale 5: ICU Resources
|
42.9 ± 32.8
|
28.7 ± 29.5
|
23.1 ± 30.7
|
43.7 ± 34.3
|
20.5 ± 24.4
|
95.09
|
892.58
|
0.10
|
0.79
|
0.0009
|
Not enough nursing staff to deliver adequate nutrition. | 18.5 ± 29.2 | 17.8 ± 27.3 | 17.6 ± 34.3 | 38.1 ± 42.3 | 10.3 ± 23.4 | 76.36 | 953.62 | 0.07 | 0.74 | 0.006 |
Enteral formula not available on the unit. | 53.7 ± 44.6 | 33.3 ± 37.1 | 32.4 ± 36.1 | 42.9 ± 38.3 | 17.9 ± 28.4 | 149.67 | 1330.97 | 0.10 | 0.80 | 0.0003 |
No or not enough feeding pumps on the unit. | 56.5 ± 42.0 | 37.9 ± 38.5 | 19.4 ± 32.2 | 50.0 ± 38.0 | 33.3 ± 33.7 | 172.74 | 1343.58 | 0.11 | 0.82 | 0.0003 |
Open-ended questions
On-site observational visits
Revised barriers questionnaire and pilot test
Questionnaire items | ICC (2,1) | Kappa* |
---|---|---|
Overall Barriers | 0.64 | 0.35 |
Guideline Recommendations and Implementation Strategies | 0.31 | 0.06 |
1. Current scientific evidence supporting some nutrition interventions is inadequate to inform practice. | 0.36 | 0.24 |
2. The language of the recommendations of the current guidelines for nutrition are not easy to understand. | 0.37 | 0.38 |
3. I am not familiar with our current guidelines for nutrition in the ICU.
| 0.35 | 0.23 |
4. The current guidelines for nutrition are not readily accessible when I want to refer to them. | 0.51 | 0.30 |
5. No feeding protocol in place to guide the initiation and progression of enteral nutrition. | −0.13 | −0.03 |
Current feeding protocol is outdated. | 0.31 | 0.20 |
ICU Resources
|
0.57
|
0.60
|
6. Not enough nursing staff to deliver adequate nutrition. | 0.70 | 0.60 |
7. Enteral formula not available on the unit. | 0.34 | 0.27 |
8. No or not enough feeding pumps on the unit. | 0.51 | 0.27 |
Dietitian Support
|
0.39
|
0.34
|
9. Waiting for the dietitian to assess the patient. | 0.15 | 0.21 |
Not enough dietitian time dedicated to the ICU during regular weekday hours. | 0.43 | 0.34 |
10. No or not enough dietitian coverage during evenings,weekends and holidays. | 0.52 | 0.34 |
11. There is not enough time dedicated to education and training on how to optimally feed patients. | 0.32 | 0.20 |
Delivery of Enteral Nutrition to the Patient
|
0.55
|
0.47
|
No feeding tube in place to start feeding. | 0.51 | 0.51 |
12. Delay in physicians ordering the initiation of EN. | 0.37 | 0.13 |
13. Waiting for physician/radiology to read x-ray and confirm tube placement.
| 0.22 | 0.30 |
14. Delays in initiating motility agents in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 0.43 | 0.16 |
15. Delays and difficulties in obtaining small bowel access in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition (i.e., high gastric residual volumes). | 0.52 | 0.65 |
16. In resuscitated, hemodynamically stable patients, other aspects of patient care still take priority over nutrition. | 0.59 | 0.52 |
17. Needles delays in relaying information regarding the initiation and progression of nutrition.
| 0.36 | 0.32 |
Critical Care Provider Attitudes and Behavior
|
0.62
|
0.35
|
18. Non-ICU physicians (i.e., surgeons, gastroenterologists) requesting patients not be fed enterally. | 0.57 | 0.43 |
19. Nurses failing to progress feeds as per the feeding protocol. | 0.09 | 0.19 |
20. Feeds being held due to diarrhea.
| 0.46 | 0.50 |
21. Fear of adverse events due to aggressively feeding patients. | 0.53 | 0.33 |
22. Feeding being held too far in advance of procedures or operating room visits. | 0.69 | 0.65 |
23. General belief among ICU team that provision of adequate nutrition does not impact on patient outcome.
| 0.60 | 0.87 |