ArticlePharmacy practice
Influencing the timing of parenteral nutrition initiation in the pediatric intensive care unit.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLack of benefit and potential harm of early parenteral nutrition (PN) initiation in critically ill children was highlighted in the 2016 published results of a large multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
objectivesThe purpose of this project was to implement a process to delay PN initiation for up to five days after admission to our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).
methodsPatients greater than thirty days of age, admitted to the PICU beginning July 1, 2016 were included in the analysis of the healthcare improvement initiative to decrease early PN initiation. A meeting was held with PICU fellows, attending physicians, dietitians, and pharmacists to reach a consensus to delay initiation of parenteral nutrition until PICU day five. The dietitian, with pharmacist support, reiterated recommendations on rounds and in formal notes.
resultsA total of 2333 patients were identified in the pre-intervention group and a total of 2491 patients in the post-intervention group. The percentage of patients receiving PN prior to day five within the PICU was 5.5% in the pre-intervention group versus 3.1% in the delayed PN group (p<0.001). PICU patients receiving PN less than or equal to three days decreased from 2.6% pre-intervention to 1.5% post-intervention (p=0.01). For the subset of patients who were initiated on PN after admission to the PICU, median PICU length of stay was 7 days versus 6 days in the pre-intervention versus post-intervention group (p=0.26).
conclusionsDecrease in PN utilization was seen in the pre and post-intervention groups as assessed by percentage of patients initiated on PN prior to day five of PICU admission. Consensus among practitioners with consistent recommendations from the frontline dietitian and pharmacist, with nutrition support team collaboration, contributed to the evidence based quality initiative results. Delaying PN did not adversely affect length of stay pre versus post-intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.