4.2 Article

Creating a Culture of Clinical Excellence in Critical Care Nutrition: The 2008 Best of the Best Award

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 707-715

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607110361901

关键词

knowledge translation; organizational culture; nutrition support; intensive care unit; clinical practice guidelines

资金

  1. Canadian Institute for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To develop, validate, and implement a system to reward top performers in critical care nutrition practice and to illuminate characteristics of top-performing intensive care units (ICUs). Design: An international, prospective, observational, cohort study conducted in May 2008. Setting: 179 ICUs from 18 countries. Patients: 2956 consecutively enrolled mechanically ventilated adult patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 72 hours. Interventions: To qualify for the Best of the Best (BOB) award, sites had to have implemented a nutrition protocol and contributed complete data on a minimum of 20 patients. Measurements and Main Results: Data on nutrition practices were collected from ICU admission to ICU discharge for a maximum of 12 days. Eligible sites were ranked based on their performance on the following 5 criteria: adequacy of provision of energy, use of enteral nutrition (EN), early initiation of EN, use of promotility drugs and small bowel feeding tubes, and adequate glycemic control. Of the 179 participating ICUs, 81 qualified for the BOB award. Overall, the average nutrition adequacy across sites was 56.2% (site range, 20.3%-90.1%). The top 10 performers were identified and publicly recognized. Regression analysis suggested that the presence of a dietitian in the ICU was associated with a high BOB award ranking, whereas being located in the United States or China, relative to other participating countries, was associated with worst performance. Conclusions: There is variable performance with respect to critical care nutrition practices across the world. (JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2010;34:707-715).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据