BackgroundICU patients lose muscle mass rapidly and maintenance of muscle mass may contribute to improved survival rates and quality of life. Protein provision may be beneficial for preservation of muscle mass and other clinical outcomes, including survival. Current protein recommendations are expert-based and range from 1.2 to 2.0 g/kg. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on protein provision and all clinically relevant outcomes recorded in the available literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses, including studies of all designs except case control and case studies, with patients aged ≥18 years with an ICU stay of ≥2 days and a mean protein provision group of ≥1.2 g/kg as compared to <1.2 g/kg with a difference of ≥0.2 g/kg between protein provision groups. All clinically relevant outcomes were studied. Meta-analyses were performed for all clinically relevant outcomes that were recorded in ≥3 included studies.ResultsA total of 29 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included. Outcomes reported in the included studies were ICU, hospital, 28-day, 30-day, 42-day, 60-day, 90-day and 6-month mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, diarrhea, gastric residual volume, pneumonia, overall infections, nitrogen balance, changes in muscle mass, destination at hospital discharge, physical performance and psychological status. Meta-analyses showed differences between groups in favour of high protein provision for 60-day mortality, nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass.ConclusionHigh protein provision of more than 1.2 g/kg in critically ill patients seemed to improve nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass on the short-term and likely 60-day mortality. Data on long-term effects on quality of life are urgently needed.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Admission to a hospital is often related with hospital-associated disabilities. Improving physical activity during hospitalization is considered effective to counteract hospital-associated disabilities, whereas many studies report on very low physical activity levels. Gradually developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with patients and health care professionals rather than implementing predefined interventions may be more effective in creating sustainable changes in everyday clinical practice. However, no studies have reported on the use of cocreation in the development and implementation of interventions aimed at improving physical activity.OBJECTIVE: This protocol presents a study that aims to investigate if interventions, which will be developed and implemented in cocreation, improve physical activity among patients in surgery, internal medicine, and cardiology hospital wards. The secondary aims are to investigate effectiveness in terms of the reduction in the time patients spend in bed, the length of hospital stay, and the proportion of patients going home after discharge.METHODS: The Better By Moving study takes place for 12 months at the following five different wards of a university hospital: two gastrointestinal and oncology surgery wards, one internal medicine hematology ward, one internal medicine infectious diseases ward, and one cardiology ward. The step-by-step implementation model of Grol and Wensing is used, and all interventions are developed and implemented in cocreation with health care professionals and patients. Outcome evaluation is performed across the different hospital wards and for each hospital ward individually. The primary outcome is the amount of physical activity in minutes assessed with the Physical Activity Monitor AM400 accelerometer in two individual groups of patients (preimplementation [n=110], and 13 months after the start of the implementation [n=110]). The secondary outcomes are time spent in bed measured using behavioral mapping protocols, and length of stay and discharge destination assessed using organizational data. A process evaluation using semistructured interviews and surveys is adopted to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms of impact, context, and perceived barriers and enablers.RESULTS: This study is ongoing. The first participant was enrolled in January 2018. The last outcome evaluation and process evaluation are planned for May and June 2020, respectively. Results are expected in April 2021.CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide information about the effectiveness of developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with regard to improving physical activity in different subgroups of hospitalized patients in a university hospital. By following step-by-step implementation and by performing process evaluation, we will identify the barriers and enablers for implementation and describe the effect of new interventions on improving physical activity among hospitalized patients.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL8480; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8480.INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19000.
Aims and objectives: To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP). Background: Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed. Results: Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP. Conclusion: The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising. Relevance to clinical practice: The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.
