Stoppe, Christian

AbstractThe dual burden of undernutrition and overnutrition requires a greater understanding and commitment to physician training and specialization in nutrition support. Despite the significant healthcare need and existence of organizations focused on nutrition support such as the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), physician involvement in the nutrition care of high‐risk patients remains low. In an ASPEN survey of members, inadequate training among physicians was reported along with significant barriers to involvement in nutrition support, such as insufficient protected time, reduced reimbursement and financial support, inadequate support from administrators or supervisors, as well as a nationwide reduction in number of nutrition support teams. These changes in the healthcare landscape prompted the ASPEN Physician Engagement Committee to develop a critical review focused on domains of nutrition risk assessment, enteral and parenteral access and support, scholarly activities, board certification, administrative responsibilities, education and training opportunities, coding, and reimbursement. The aim of this critical review is to capacitate physicians to engage in nutrition support and enhance their acumen in clinical nutrition to improve patient care and enrich personal and professional development.

Abstract The landmark NUTRIREA‐2 and NUTRIREA‐3 trials compared the route and dose of nutrition, respectively, in critically ill patients with circulatory shock. The results of both trials support a “less‐is‐more” paradigm shift in the early acute phase of critical illness. In this review, the authors outline and appraise the results of the NUTRIREA‐2 and NUTRIREA‐3 trials, introduce the concept of identifying the “sweet spot” for nutrition dose based on severity of illness/nutrition risk and nutrition dose, and identify the unintended consequences of delivering full‐dose nutrition in sicker critically ill patients during the early acute phase of critical illness.