Evaluating Evidence‐Based Nutrition Support Practice Among Healthcare Professionals With and Without the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician Credential

Brody, Rebecca; Hise, Mary; Marcus, Andrea Fleisch; Harvey-Banchik, Lillian; Matarese, Laura E.

doi:10.1177/0148607115587947

Cited by 5 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More than half of the respondents were board certified by NBNSC, and the results indicated that those holding the certification were significantly more likely to choose correct answers compared to those without the credential. Although a certification examination cannot guarantee patient safety, it can help ensure patient safety by identifying those individuals who can demonstrate knowledge through a standardized validated board certification process 15 Question 12.6.…”

Section: Section 12 Documentation and Quality Review Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surveys of nutrition support professionals indicate that board certification is critical to providing safe and effective care to patients 14 . Brody and colleagues 15 conducted a survey of healthcare professionals affiliated with ASPEN and used a case‐based scenario based on established clinical guidelines to evaluate knowledge of nutrition support practices. More than half of the respondents were board certified by NBNSC, and the results indicated that those holding the certification were significantly more likely to choose correct answers compared to those without the credential.…”

Section: Section 12 Documentation and Quality Review Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

Boullata

Carrera²,

Harvey

et al. 2016

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

349

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Section 12 Documentation and Quality Review Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Section 12 Documentation and Quality Review Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

Boullata

Carrera²,

Harvey

et al. 2016

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

349

531

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This month's issue of the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition contains an article by Brody and colleagues 1 entitled, “Evaluating Evidence‐Based Nutrition Support Practice Among Healthcare Professionals With and Without the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician Credential.” In this article, the authors report the results of a study in which they surveyed a sample of convenience of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) members, asking nutrition support questions about a clinical scenario concerning acute pancreatitis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Brody et al 1 article highlights some of the challenges facing the nutrition support professional community. It exposes some of the frustrations we have as nutrition support practitioners as we try to demonstrate the value of nutrition support and our value added as nutrition support experts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If it is difficult to define and demonstrate the benefits of “optimal” nutrition support, it is even more difficult to determine the role of nutrition support expertise in achieving improved clinical outcomes. The study by Brody et al 1 provides modest insight into this issue but unfortunately also highlights the enormity of the task ahead for our specialty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Do We Know, How Do We Know It, and How Can We Best Apply It?

August

2015

J Parenter Enteral Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence‐based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential

Steiner,

Sackey,

Cohen

et al. 2024

Nut in Clin Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence‐based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential.MethodsThis cross‐sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence‐Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS‐15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS‐15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS‐15 scores.ResultsThe response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS‐15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS‐15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated.ConclusionsRegardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS‐15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non–CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision‐making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

show abstract

Evaluating Evidence‐Based Nutrition Support Practice Among Healthcare Professionals With and Without the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician Credential

Abstract: Professionals with the CNSC credential scored significantly higher on a complex case-based knowledge assessment of guideline recommendations for the nutrition support treatment of pancreatitis compared with those without a credential.

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy

What Do We Know, How Do We Know It, and How Can We Best Apply It?

Evidence‐based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About