Improving Enteral Delivery Through the Adoption of the “Feed Early Enteral Diet Adequately for Maximum Effect (FEED ME)” Protocol in a Surgical Trauma ICU
Background: Despite the research supporting adequate enteral nutrition (EN) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, underfeeding is still common. This quality improvement (QI) project was done to determine the effect of "volume-based" feeding on adequacy of EN delivery and provision of calories and protein in a surgical/trauma ICU (STICU). Materials and Methods: Mechanically ventilated STICU patients (n = 111) fed at least 72 hours after achieving their target goal of EN during their first week of admission were reviewed retrospectively in a QI project. Data were obtained before (n = 54) and after (n = 56) initiation of a "volume-based" feeding protocol (FEED ME-Feed Early Enteral Diet adequately for Maximum Effect). Results: The proportion of EN volume and calories delivered increased significantly (rate based, 63% ± 20%; FEED ME, 89% ± 9%; P < .0001), as did grams of protein/kg actual body weight (1.13 ± .29 to 1.26 ± .37; P = .036) using the FEED ME protocol. Groups were similar in patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and nutrition practices. Only slightly more diarrhea (rate based, 0; FEED ME, 6; P = .046) in gastric-fed patients was noted. The incidence of gastric residual volume >350 mL (rate-based, 20 episodes; FEED ME, 11 episodes; P = .34) and emesis (5 vs 2 episodes; P = .22) was similar. Conclusion: A change in standard of practice to an EN volume-based feeding approach in a STICU led to a significant improvement in adequacy of calories and protein delivered, with only a slight increase in diarrhea.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine
1
1%
Business, Management and Accounting
1
1%
Other
4
4%
Unknown
17
19%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,586,313
of 29,485,101 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#172
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,397
of 253,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,485,101 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
