Conectar
Malnutrition is a highly prevalent chronic condition that contributes to higher morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple comorbidities. While positive effects of nutritional therapy in the in-hospital setting have recently been demonstrated, the benefits of long-term nutritional therapy after hospital discharge remain uncertain. Herein, we outline the design and rationale of the EFFORTII trial, the largest nutritional trial to date to assess the effects of continued nutritional support after hospital discharge in medical patients, with particular attention to key design decisions regarding nutritional strategy, patient selection criteria and study endpoints.
The Effect of Continued Nutritional Support at Hospital Discharge on Mortality, Frailty, Functional Outcomes and Recovery (EFFORTII) is an investigator-initiated, non-commercial randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate whether ongoing, individualised nutritional therapy after hospital discharge—targeted to meet specific energy and protein requirements—offers a cost-effective approach to lowering mortality, minimising complications and maintaining functional status compared with standard care. Eligible participants are adult, chronically ill medical inpatients at risk of malnutrition. Patients in the intervention group receive individualised nutritional therapy delivered by an experienced dietitian through a combination of telemedicine and in-person consultations. The intervention aims to meet personalised nutritional targets, supported by a trained dietitian. Control group patients receive nutritional counselling at discharge, but no structured nutritional management during follow-up. We designed the trial as an event-driven trial with a target of 247 mortality events (primary endpoint), which will be assessed over approximately 5 years until event-driven endpoint is met. The minimum total sample size is at least 802 participants, based on the assumed treatment HR of 0.70. The main trial is enrolling patients across multiple sites in Switzerland. During the trial, additional sites in Spain joined the study, and their data will be analysed using a patient-level pooled approach.
This study involves human participants and was first granted ethical approval by the Ethics Committee Northwest- and Central Switzerland and then by all participating local ethics committees. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) should be implemented in clinical settings and practiced by registered nurses as it improves healthcare quality, safety, costs, and patient outcomes. For this to occur, nurses need to be skilled and acculturated. An EBP culture needs to be developed and sustained, both in initial academic programs and in clinical settings. Implementation models already exist and are being used, but outcomes are not consistently measured.
The aim of this scoping review was to gather and map the use of EBP implementation models as well as their implementation strategies and outcomes.
The methodology for the JBI Scoping Reviews was applied. The databases queried were PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, AMED, BNI, HMIC, PsycInfo. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Any primary study that describes the implementation of EBP in nursing, clinical, or academic settings. Studies using the following EBP implementation models were included: the ARCC Model, ARCC-E Model, IOWA Model, Stetler Model, Johns Hopkins Nursing EBP Model, ACE Star Model as well as PARIHS and i-PARIHS. They must have used Proctor's taxonomy for implementation outcomes as well as described implementation strategies according to the ERIC classification. Data extraction was performed by four independent reviewers in February 2024. There was no language or date limitation. Three independent reviewers performed an initial selection on titles and abstracts. Reading of the full texts was carried out by two independent reviewers using the JBI SUMARI.
A total of 2244 articles were retrieved. After removing duplicates and applying the inclusion criteria, 26 articles were reviewed, and data extracted. The most used implementation model was the PARiHS or i-PARiHS model followed by the IOWA model, the ARCC model combined with the JHNEBP model and the Stetler model. Nearly all studies used the implementation strategy domain “Use evaluative and iterative strategies” of ERIC classification. Overall, the selected studies used between 1 and 2 outcomes from Proctor's eight available.
The underuse of existing taxonomies (Proctor, ERIC) prevents an exhaustive mapping of the use of implementation models. The vocabulary used is too vague, and the implementation strategies are sometimes poorly described. An effort needs to be made to report on all work done to transfer the results to other settings and thus improve health care practices.
FreshRSS 