Implementation of nutritional guidelines in a university hospital monitored by repeated point prevalence surveys

Background/Objectives: Malnutrition is present in 20–50% of hospitalized patients, and nutritional care is a challenge. The aim was to evaluate whether the implementation of a nutritional strategy would influence nutritional care performance in a university hospital. Subjects/Methods: This was a prospective quality improvement program implementing guidelines for nutritional care, with the aim of improving nutritional practice. The Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS) 2002 was used. Point prevalence surveys over 2 years to determine whether nutritional practice had improved. Results: In total, 3604 (70%) of 5183 eligible patients were screened and 1230 (34%) were at nutritional risk. Only 53% of the at-risk patients got nutritional treatment and 5% were seen by a dietician. The proportion of patients screened increased from the first to the eighth point prevalence survey (P=0.012), but not the proportion of patients treated (P=0.66). The four initial screening questions in NRS 2002 identified 92% of the patients not at nutritional risk. Conclusions: Implementation of nutritional guidelines improved the screening performance, but did not increase the proportion of patients who received nutritional treatment. Point prevalence surveys were useful to evaluate nutritional practice in this university hospital. In order to improve practice, we suggest using only the four initial screening questions in NRS 2002 to identify patients not at risk, better education in nutritional care for physicians and nurses, and more dieticians employed. Audit of implementation of guidelines, performed by health authorities, and specific reimbursement for managing nutrition may also improve practice.publishedVersio

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices and radiation exposure: results from the 65 country IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Cross-Sectional Study (INCAPS)

AIMS: To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiation-optimizing 'best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight 'best practices' relating to radiation exposure were identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more 'best practices' had lower EDs. CONCLUSION: Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally

Nuclear Cardiology Practices and Radiation Exposure in the Oceania Region: Results From the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS)

Background There is concern about radiation exposure with radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). This sub-study of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study reports radiation doses from MPI, and use of dose-optimisation protocols in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), and compares them with data from the rest of the world. Methods Data were collected from 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 laboratories worldwide in one week in 2013, including 439 MPI studies from 34 ANZ laboratories. For each laboratory, effective radiation dose (ED) and a quality index (QI) score (out of 8) based on pre-specified “best practices” was determined. Results In ANZ patients, ED ranged from 0.9-17.9 milliSievert (mSv). Median ED was similar in ANZ compared with the rest of the world (10.0 (IQR: 6.5-11.7) vs. 10.0 (IQR 6.4-12.6, P=0.15), as were mean QI scores (5.5±0.7 vs. 5.4±1.3, P=0.84). Use of stress-only imaging (17.6% vs. 31.8% of labs, P=0.09) and weight-based dosing of technetium-99m (14.7% vs. 30.3%, P=0.07) was lower in ANZ compared with the rest of the world but this difference was not statistically significant. Median ED was significantly lower in metropolitan versus non-metropolitan laboratories (10.1 mSv vs. 11.6 mSv, P<0.01), although mean QI scores were similar (5.4±0.8 vs. 5.5±0.7, P=0.75). Conclusion Across ANZ, there is variability in ED from MPI, and use of radiation safety practices, particularly between metropolitan and non-metropolitan laboratories. Overall, ANZ laboratories have a similar median ED to laboratories in the rest of the world