Abstract

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials may be of limited use to evaluate the multidisciplinary and multimodal interventions required to effectively treat complex patients in routine clinical practice; pragmatic action research approaches may provide a suitable alternative.MethodsA multiphase, pragmatic, action research based approach was developed to identify and overcome barriers to nutritional care in patients admitted to a metropolitan hospital hip-fracture unit.ResultsFour sequential action research cycles built upon baseline data including 614 acute hip-fracture inpatients and 30 purposefully sampled clinicians. Reports from Phase I identified barriers to nutrition screening and assessment. Phase II reported post-fracture protein-energy intakes and intake barriers. Phase III built on earlier results; an explanatory mixed-methods study expanded and explored additional barriers and facilitators to nutritional care. Subsequent changes to routine clinical practice were developed and implemented by the treating team between Phase III and IV. These were implemented as a new multidisciplinary, multimodal nutritional model of care. A quasi-experimental controlled, ‘before-and-after’ study was then used to compare the new model of care with an individualised nutritional care model. Engagement of the multidisciplinary team in a multiphase, pragmatic action research intervention doubled energy and protein intakes, tripled return home discharge rates, and effected a 75% reduction in nutritional deterioration during admission in a reflective cohort of hip-fracture inpatients.ConclusionsThis approach allowed research to be conducted as part of routine clinical practice, captured a more representative patient cohort than previously reported studies, and facilitated exploration of barriers and engagement of the multidisciplinary healthcare workers to identify and implement practical solutions. This study demonstrates substantially different findings to those previously reported, and is the first to demonstrate that multidisciplinary, multimodal nutrition care reduces intake barriers, delivers a higher proportional increase in protein and energy intake compared with baseline than other published intervention studies, and improves patient outcomes when compared with individualised nutrition care. The findings are considered highly relevant to clinical practice and have high translation validity. The authors strongly encourage the development of similar study designs to investigate complex health problems in elderly, multi-morbid patient populations as a way to evaluate and change clinical practice.

Highlights

  • Randomised controlled trials may be of limited use to evaluate the multidisciplinary and multimodal interventions required to effectively treat complex patients in routine clinical practice; pragmatic action research approaches may provide a suitable alternative

  • Whilst no a priori assumptions were made the treatment team was not at all surprised that the most commonly applied and recommended nutrition screening tools were highlighted as performing poorly in routine clinical practice despite previously published explanatory studies purporting their validity for this purpose; this was demonstrated to lead to substantial patient and healthcare implications [29,30]

  • Another diagnostic accuracy study reported that measures of malnutrition most commonly applied in nutritionally focused hip fracture Randomised controlled trial (RCT) were not useful for this purpose when applied in routine clinical practice [32]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials may be of limited use to evaluate the multidisciplinary and multimodal interventions required to effectively treat complex patients in routine clinical practice; pragmatic action research approaches may provide a suitable alternative. Within the context of the ever-burgeoning expectation that medical research becomes translational, that is, that it informs ‘real’ practice in ‘real’ medical settings (clinics, hospitals and other facilities), the search for ‘practices’ that ‘work’ is serious This quest can be hampered by the inexorable pursuit of demonstrable clinical effects of interventions founded upon gold standard methods. This invariably means that clinical effects demonstrated through the rigours of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) maintain a mesmerizing grip on the definitions and descriptors of what stands for ‘high quality’ research and the often-lofty claims to truth. It is not surprising that RCTs and reviews of these have failed to clearly define consistent and adequate evidence to guide bedside nutritional care in patients with acute hip fracture [1]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call