Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

ABSTRACT Background Nutrition during hospitalisation following critical illness is fundamental to rehabilitation, but provision is often poor. Aim To analyse the process of delivering nutrition to post‐ICU patients on the ward. Study Design This work forms part of a mixed methods study. In three representative UK hospitals, we conducted: a structured judgement review (SJR) of 300 patients who died following discharge from ICU; in‐depth reviews of 20 survivors and 20 deaths judged to be ‘probably avoidable’ in the SJR; and interviews with 55 patients, family members and staff about their experiences of post‐ICU ward care. We extracted nutrition provision information from the primary data. Using these data and the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), we worked with stakeholders to map the process of delivering enteral feed to patients discharged from ICU to hospital wards. Results The stakeholder meeting included a dietitian and a medical registrar from two of the three primary data collection sites, two researchers with knowledge of the primary data (with nursing and physiotherapy backgrounds) and a human factors facilitator. The FRAM revealed that providing enteral feeding on the ward is not a linear process, with three clusters of functions delivering distinct steps within the wider process: establishing the need for nasogastric feeding, the nasogastric placement cycle and nasogastric feed delivery. There are multiple points in these processes where failures in multi‐professional teamwork result in the absence of the required steps to move through the processes in a timely manner. In particular, the process for confirming nasogastric tube placement risked system‐related delays to feed administration, significantly affecting the volume of feed delivered to patients. Conclusions The FRAM identified multiple process problems affecting nutritional support that may have led to profound consequences for post‐ICU patients, with multi‐professional collaboration a key factor for effective delivery of timely enteral nutrition. Relevance to Clinical Practice Improving collaborative working processes and addressing common nutritional support problems after ICU discharge could improve nutritional delivery and expedite recovery from critical illness. Trial Registration ISRCTN14658054

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1111/nicc.70374

Type

Journal article

Publisher

Wiley

Publication Date

2026-03-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

31