Aim Shifting to models of care that incorporate delegation of nutrition care process actions to dietitian assistants could facilitate effective and efficient nutrition care delivery. This review aimed to determine if delegation of malnutrition care activities to dietitian assistants, when compared with routine nutrition care practices influences patient, healthcare and/or workforce outcomes for adult hospital inpatients with or at risk of malnutrition. Methods This review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, with five databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus) searched systematically for studies published up to and including February 2020. Exclusion criteria included review articles and studies conducted in community settings. Results The search yielded 3431 results, with 11 studies eligible for inclusion. Across all domains of the nutrition care process, there is emerging evidence dietitian assistants may improve the delivery of nutrition care practices, patient, healthcare and workforce outcomes. Findings demonstrated various roles and scope of dietitian assistants' practice throughout the studies. Positive patient outcomes were found when dietitian assistants were part of a multi‐disciplinary model of care. Conclusions Implementing delegation of components of the nutrition care process to dietitian assistants is vital in the current health climate and should be considered in a future multidisciplinary model of nutrition care. Exploration of dietitian assistant roles and opportunities are required to expand and strengthen the evidence.

Delegation of malnutrition care to dietitian assistants can positively influence patient, healthcare, and workforce outcomes. However, nutrition care for hospital inpatients with or at risk of malnutrition remains primarily individually delivered by dietitians—an approach that is not considered sustainable. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to delegating malnutrition care activities to dietitian assistants. This qualitative descriptive study was nested within a broader quality assurance activity to scale and spread systematised and interdisciplinary malnutrition models of care. Twenty-three individual semi-structured interviews were completed with nutrition and dietetic team members across seven hospitals. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken, and barriers and enablers to delegation of malnutrition care to dietitian assistants were grouped into four themes: working with the human factors; balancing value and risk of delegation; creating competence, capability, and capacity; and recognizing contextual factors. This study highlights novel insights into barriers and enablers to delegating malnutrition care to dietitian assistants. Successful delegation to dietitian assistants requires the unique perspectives of humans as individuals and in their collective healthcare roles, moving from words to actions that value delegation; engaging in processes to improve competency, capability, and capacity of all; and being responsive to climate and contextual factors.

Approximately one-third of adult inpatients are malnourished with substantial associated healthcare burden. Delegation frameworks facilitate improved nutrition care delivery and high-value healthcare. This study aimed to explore knowledge, attitudes, and practices of dietitians and dietitian assistants regarding delegation of malnutrition care activities. This multi-site study was nested within a nutrition care implementation program, conducted across Queensland (Australia) hospitals. A quantitative questionnaire was conducted across eight sites; 87 dietitians and 37 dietitian assistants responded and descriptive analyses completed. Dietitians felt guidelines to support delegation were inadequate (agreement: <50% for assessment/diagnosis, care coordination, education, and monitoring and evaluation); dietitian assistants perceived knowledge and guidelines to undertake delegated tasks were adequate (agreement: >50% food and nutrient delivery, education, and monitoring and evaluation). Dietitians and dietitian assistants reported confidence to delegate/receive delegation (dietitian agreement: >50% across all care components; dietitian assistant agreement: >50% for assessment/diagnosis, food and nutrient delivery, education, monitoring and evaluation). Practice of select nutrition care activities were routinely performed by dietitians, rather than assistants (p < 0.001 across all nutrition care components). The process for care delegation needs to be improved. Clarity around barriers and enablers to delegation of care prior to implementing reforms to the current models of care is key.

Background: There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co-design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co-design in nutrition interventions. Methods: This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co-design and met the 'Collaborate' or 'Empower' levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co-design for (2) nutrition interventions. Results: The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co-design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co-design framework or approach was reported across the various studies. Conclusions: Consumer co-design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co-design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

Malnutrition risk is identified in over one-third of inpatients; reliance on dietetics-delivered nutrition care for all “at-risk” patients is unsustainable, inefficient, and ineffective. This study aimed to identify and prioritise low-value malnutrition care activities for de-implementation and articulate systematised interdisciplinary opportunities. Nine workshops, at eight purposively sampled hospitals, were undertaken using the nominal group technique. Participants were asked “What highly individualised malnutrition care activities do you think we could replace with systematised, interdisciplinary malnutrition care?” and “What systematised, interdisciplinary opportunities do you think we should do to provide more effective and efficient nutrition care in our ward/hospital?” Sixty-three participants were provided five votes per question. The most voted de-implementation activities were low-value nutrition reviews (32); education by dietitian (28); assessments by dietitian for patients with malnutrition screening tool score of two (22); assistants duplicating malnutrition screening (19); and comprehensive, individualised nutrition assessments where unlikely to add value (15). The top voted alternative opportunities were delegated/skill shared interventions (55), delegated/skill shared education (24), abbreviated malnutrition care processes where clinically appropriate (23), delegated/skill shared supportive food/fluids (14), and mealtime assistance (13). Findings highlight opportunities to de-implement perceived low-value malnutrition care activities and replace them with systems and skill shared alternatives across hospital settings.

Background: Inpatient malnutrition is a key determinant of adverse patient and healthcare outcomes. The engagement of patients as active participants in nutrition care processes that support informed consent, care planning and shared decision making is recommended and has expected benefits. This study applied patient-reported measures to identify the proportion of malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians that reported engagement in key nutrition care processes. Methods: A subset analysis of a multisite malnutrition audit limited to patients with diagnosed malnutrition who had at least one dietitian chart entry and were able to respond to patient-reported measurement questions. Results: Data were available for 71 patients across nine Queensland hospitals. Patients were predominantly older adults (median 81 years, IQR 15) and female (n = 46) with mild/moderate (n = 50) versus severe (n = 17) or unspecified severity (n = 4) malnutrition. The median length of stay at the time of audit was 7 days (IQR 13). More than half of the patients included had two or more documented dietitian reviews. Nearly all patients (n = 68) received at least one form of nutrition support. A substantial number of patients reported not receiving a malnutrition diagnosis (n = 37), not being provided information about malnutrition (n = 30), or not having a plan for ongoing nutrition care or follow-up (n = 31). There were no clinically relevant trends between patient-reported measures and the number of dietitian reviews or severity of malnutrition. Conclusions: Malnourished inpatients seen by dietitians across multiple hospitals almost always receive nutritional support. Urgent attention is required to identify why these same patients do not routinely report receiving malnutrition diagnostic advice, receiving information about being at risk of malnutrition, and having a plan for ongoing nutrition care, regardless of how many times they are seen by dietitians.

No abstract

No abstract