Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.

Basal energy expenditure accounts for a large component of energy losses, and a clinical estimate of this form of thermogenesis is usually derived from a prediction equation. The most widely used prediction equation was developed in 1919 by Harris and Benedict. The energy requirements of healthy and diseased individuals are often estimated from application of this formula. Using a direct gradient-layer calorimeter and two different indirect calorimeters, our two centers found that the Harris-Benedict equation overestimated basal energy requirements by 10 to 15% (X +/- SD, 12.3 +/- 11%) in 201 studies of healthy men and women. These results raise questions regarding the accuracy of predicting an individual's energy requirements.

Controversy exists as to the validity and reliability of hood and mask systems in measuring indirect calorimetry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of repeat measurements of resting energy expenditure (REE) in volunteers. Paired REE measurements were performed in 23 subjects after an overnight fast using hood and mask systems. Lean body mass was calculated from four skinfold measurements and body weight determinations. Data were normalized to body weight and lean body mass and were calculated as percent predicted REE in paired tests taken within 5 minutes on the same subject. No significant difference in mean REE was noted between hood and mask systems. Linear regression analysis showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.91, p less than 0.001) between hood and mask measurements of REE.

No abstract