McClave, Stephen A

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.

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.

AbstractDespite a mounting evidentiary base, controversies surrounding critical care nutrition support persist. Anchored by a case of a 60‐year‐old male with esophageal cancer who develops acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and septic shock, five panelists from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) 2021 Pre‐Conference discuss key clinical dilemmas in critical care nutrition, including hierarchy of evidence, bedside evaluation of malnutrition, optimal protein dose, use of fiber, and therapies targeting gut function and gut microbiota .