Enteral nutritional support management in a university teaching hospital:Team vs nonteam

Rex Brown, Sheryl D. Carlson, George S.M. Cowan, R. Wayne Luther, Douglas A. Powers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Current hospital cost containment pressures have prompted a critical evaluation of whether nutritional support teams render more clinically effective and efficient patient care than nonteam management. To address this question with regard to enteral feeding, 102 consecutive hospitalized patients who required enteral nutritional support (ENS) by tube feeding during a 3 1/2-month period were prospectively studied. Fifty patients were managed by a nutritional support team; the other 52 were managed by their primary physicians. Choice of enteral formula, formula modifications, frequency of laboratory tests, and amounts of energy and protein received were recorded daily. In addition, each patient was monitored for pulmonary, mechanical, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. Team-managed (T) and nonteam-managed (NT) patients received ENS for 632 and 398 days, respectively. The average time period for ENS was significantly longer in the team-managed patients (12.6 +/- 12.1 days vs 7.7 +/- 6.2 days, p less than 0.01). Significantly more of the team patients attained 1.2 X basal energy expenditure (BEE) (37vs 26, p less than 0.05). Total number of abnormalities in each group was similar (T =398, NT = 390); however, the abnormalities per day were significantly lower in the team group (T = 0.63 vs NT = 0.98, p less than 0.01). Mechanical (T = 0.05 vs NT = 0.11, p less than 0.01), gastrointestinal (T = 0.99 vs NT = 0.14, p less than 0.05), and metabolic (T =0.49 vs NT = 0.72, p less than 0.01) abnormalities per day all were significantly lower in the team-managed patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)52-56
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1987

Fingerprint

Nutritional Support
Teaching Hospitals
Small Intestine
Enteral Nutrition
Patient Care Management
Cost Control
Hospital Costs
Energy Metabolism
Physicians
Pressure
Lung

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Enteral nutritional support management in a university teaching hospital:Team vs nonteam. / Brown, Rex; Carlson, Sheryl D.; Cowan, George S.M.; Luther, R. Wayne; Powers, Douglas A.

In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.01.1987, p. 52-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brown, Rex ; Carlson, Sheryl D. ; Cowan, George S.M. ; Luther, R. Wayne ; Powers, Douglas A. / Enteral nutritional support management in a university teaching hospital:Team vs nonteam. In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 1987 ; Vol. 11, No. 1. pp. 52-56.
@article{b11024e7d5b64f03af8a17eb0984fb5b,
title = "Enteral nutritional support management in a university teaching hospital:Team vs nonteam",
abstract = "Current hospital cost containment pressures have prompted a critical evaluation of whether nutritional support teams render more clinically effective and efficient patient care than nonteam management. To address this question with regard to enteral feeding, 102 consecutive hospitalized patients who required enteral nutritional support (ENS) by tube feeding during a 3 1/2-month period were prospectively studied. Fifty patients were managed by a nutritional support team; the other 52 were managed by their primary physicians. Choice of enteral formula, formula modifications, frequency of laboratory tests, and amounts of energy and protein received were recorded daily. In addition, each patient was monitored for pulmonary, mechanical, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. Team-managed (T) and nonteam-managed (NT) patients received ENS for 632 and 398 days, respectively. The average time period for ENS was significantly longer in the team-managed patients (12.6 +/- 12.1 days vs 7.7 +/- 6.2 days, p less than 0.01). Significantly more of the team patients attained 1.2 X basal energy expenditure (BEE) (37vs 26, p less than 0.05). Total number of abnormalities in each group was similar (T =398, NT = 390); however, the abnormalities per day were significantly lower in the team group (T = 0.63 vs NT = 0.98, p less than 0.01). Mechanical (T = 0.05 vs NT = 0.11, p less than 0.01), gastrointestinal (T = 0.99 vs NT = 0.14, p less than 0.05), and metabolic (T =0.49 vs NT = 0.72, p less than 0.01) abnormalities per day all were significantly lower in the team-managed patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).",
author = "Rex Brown and Carlson, {Sheryl D.} and Cowan, {George S.M.} and Luther, {R. Wayne} and Powers, {Douglas A.}",
year = "1987",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/014860718701100152",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "52--56",
journal = "Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition",
issn = "0148-6071",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enteral nutritional support management in a university teaching hospital:Team vs nonteam

AU - Brown, Rex

AU - Carlson, Sheryl D.

AU - Cowan, George S.M.

AU - Luther, R. Wayne

AU - Powers, Douglas A.

PY - 1987/1/1

Y1 - 1987/1/1

N2 - Current hospital cost containment pressures have prompted a critical evaluation of whether nutritional support teams render more clinically effective and efficient patient care than nonteam management. To address this question with regard to enteral feeding, 102 consecutive hospitalized patients who required enteral nutritional support (ENS) by tube feeding during a 3 1/2-month period were prospectively studied. Fifty patients were managed by a nutritional support team; the other 52 were managed by their primary physicians. Choice of enteral formula, formula modifications, frequency of laboratory tests, and amounts of energy and protein received were recorded daily. In addition, each patient was monitored for pulmonary, mechanical, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. Team-managed (T) and nonteam-managed (NT) patients received ENS for 632 and 398 days, respectively. The average time period for ENS was significantly longer in the team-managed patients (12.6 +/- 12.1 days vs 7.7 +/- 6.2 days, p less than 0.01). Significantly more of the team patients attained 1.2 X basal energy expenditure (BEE) (37vs 26, p less than 0.05). Total number of abnormalities in each group was similar (T =398, NT = 390); however, the abnormalities per day were significantly lower in the team group (T = 0.63 vs NT = 0.98, p less than 0.01). Mechanical (T = 0.05 vs NT = 0.11, p less than 0.01), gastrointestinal (T = 0.99 vs NT = 0.14, p less than 0.05), and metabolic (T =0.49 vs NT = 0.72, p less than 0.01) abnormalities per day all were significantly lower in the team-managed patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).

AB - Current hospital cost containment pressures have prompted a critical evaluation of whether nutritional support teams render more clinically effective and efficient patient care than nonteam management. To address this question with regard to enteral feeding, 102 consecutive hospitalized patients who required enteral nutritional support (ENS) by tube feeding during a 3 1/2-month period were prospectively studied. Fifty patients were managed by a nutritional support team; the other 52 were managed by their primary physicians. Choice of enteral formula, formula modifications, frequency of laboratory tests, and amounts of energy and protein received were recorded daily. In addition, each patient was monitored for pulmonary, mechanical, gastrointestinal, and metabolic abnormalities. Team-managed (T) and nonteam-managed (NT) patients received ENS for 632 and 398 days, respectively. The average time period for ENS was significantly longer in the team-managed patients (12.6 +/- 12.1 days vs 7.7 +/- 6.2 days, p less than 0.01). Significantly more of the team patients attained 1.2 X basal energy expenditure (BEE) (37vs 26, p less than 0.05). Total number of abnormalities in each group was similar (T =398, NT = 390); however, the abnormalities per day were significantly lower in the team group (T = 0.63 vs NT = 0.98, p less than 0.01). Mechanical (T = 0.05 vs NT = 0.11, p less than 0.01), gastrointestinal (T = 0.99 vs NT = 0.14, p less than 0.05), and metabolic (T =0.49 vs NT = 0.72, p less than 0.01) abnormalities per day all were significantly lower in the team-managed patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023111801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023111801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/014860718701100152

DO - 10.1177/014860718701100152

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 52

EP - 56

JO - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

JF - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

SN - 0148-6071

IS - 1

ER -