Blackmer, Allison B.

Abstract Prior to the 1970s, blending food and liquids and putting them through an enteral access device (EAD) was the most common form of enteral nutrition (EN). However, in the 1970s, blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) became less popular due to the emergence of modern commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Recently, a cultural shift toward consuming a natural diet, consisting of whole foods, has led to a resurgence in the use of BTF. The increasing use of BTF in a variety of patient care settings identifies a need for practice recommendations that provide guidance for nutrition professionals and patients. Members of the American Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Enteral Nutrition Committee identified salient clinical questions concerning BTF, conducted a comprehensive literature search, and subsequently developed practice recommendations pertaining to the use of BTF. This paper was approved by the ASPEN 2022–2023 Board of Directors.

AbstractBackgroundMalnutrition is underrecognized and underdiagnosed, despite high prevalence rates and associated poor clinical outcomes. The involvement of clinical nutrition experts, especially physicians, in the care of high‐risk patients with malnutrition remains low despite evidence demonstrating lower complication rates with nutrition support team (NST) management. To facilitate solutions, a survey was designed to elucidate the nature of NSTs and physician involvement and identify needs for novel nutrition support care models.MethodsThis survey assessed demographics of NSTs, factors contributing to the success of NSTs, elements of nutrition education, and other barriers to professional growth.ResultsOf 255 respondents, 235 complete surveys were analyzed. The geographic distribution of respondents correlated with population concentrations of the United States (r = 90.8%, p < .0001). Most responding physicians (46/57; 80.7%) reported being a member of NSTs, compared with 56.5% (88/156) of dietitians. Of those not practicing in NSTs (N = 81/235, 34.4%), 12.3% (10/81) reported an NST was previously present at their institution but had been disbanded. Regarding NSTs, financial concerns were common (115/235; 48.9%), followed by leadership (72/235; 30.6%), and healthcare professional (HCP) interest (55/235; 23.4%). A majority (173/235; 73.6%) of all respondents wanted additional training in nutrition but reported insufficient protected time, ability to travel, or support from administrators or other HCPs.ConclusionCore actions resulting from this survey focused on formalizing physician roles, increasing interdisciplinary nutrition support expertise, utilizing cost‐effective screening for malnutrition, and implementing intervention protocols. Additional actions included increasing funding for clinical practice, education, and research, all within an expanded portfolio of pragmatic nutrition support care models.