This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Malnutrition risk is identified in over one-third of inpatients; reliance on dietetics-delivered nutrition care for all “at-risk” patients is unsustainable, inefficient, and ineffective. This study aimed to identify and prioritise low-value malnutrition care activities for de-implementation and articulate systematised interdisciplinary opportunities. Nine workshops, at eight purposively sampled hospitals, were undertaken using the nominal group technique. Participants were asked “What highly individualised malnutrition care activities do you think we could replace with systematised, interdisciplinary malnutrition care?” and “What systematised, interdisciplinary opportunities do you think we should do to provide more effective and efficient nutrition care in our ward/hospital?” Sixty-three participants were provided five votes per question. The most voted de-implementation activities were low-value nutrition reviews (32); education by dietitian (28); assessments by dietitian for patients with malnutrition screening tool score of two (22); assistants duplicating malnutrition screening (19); and comprehensive, individualised nutrition assessments where unlikely to add value (15). The top voted alternative opportunities were delegated/skill shared interventions (55), delegated/skill shared education (24), abbreviated malnutrition care processes where clinically appropriate (23), delegated/skill shared supportive food/fluids (14), and mealtime assistance (13). Findings highlight opportunities to de-implement perceived low-value malnutrition care activities and replace them with systems and skill shared alternatives across hospital settings.

No abstract

Background: Inpatient malnutrition is a key determinant of adverse patient and healthcare outcomes. The engagement of patients as active participants in nutrition care processes that support informed consent, care planning and shared decision making is recommended and has expected benefits. This study applied patient-reported measures to identify the proportion of malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians that reported engagement in key nutrition care processes. Methods: A subset analysis of a multisite malnutrition audit limited to patients with diagnosed malnutrition who had at least one dietitian chart entry and were able to respond to patient-reported measurement questions. Results: Data were available for 71 patients across nine Queensland hospitals. Patients were predominantly older adults (median 81 years, IQR 15) and female (n = 46) with mild/moderate (n = 50) versus severe (n = 17) or unspecified severity (n = 4) malnutrition. The median length of stay at the time of audit was 7 days (IQR 13). More than half of the patients included had two or more documented dietitian reviews. Nearly all patients (n = 68) received at least one form of nutrition support. A substantial number of patients reported not receiving a malnutrition diagnosis (n = 37), not being provided information about malnutrition (n = 30), or not having a plan for ongoing nutrition care or follow-up (n = 31). There were no clinically relevant trends between patient-reported measures and the number of dietitian reviews or severity of malnutrition. Conclusions: Malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians across multiple hospitals almost always receive nutritional support. Urgent attention is required to identify why these same patients do not routinely report receiving malnutrition diagnostic advice, receiving information about being at risk of malnutrition, and having a plan for ongoing nutrition care, regardless of how many times they are seen by dietitians.

No abstract