Evaluation of patient quality of life and satisfaction with home enteral feeding and oral nutrition support services: a cross-sectional study
Sahrish Sonia Faruquie A , Elizabeth Kumiko Parker B C and Peter Talbot BA The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: sfaruquie@gmail.com
B The Dietetics and Nutrition Department, Westmead Hospital, Corner Hawkesbury Road and Darcy Road, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia. Email: Peter.Talbot@health.nsw.gov.au
C Corresponding author. Email: Elizabeth.Parker@health.nsw.gov.au
Australian Health Review 40(6) 605-612 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15083
Submitted: 2 May 2015 Accepted: 8 January 2016 Published: 3 March 2016
Abstract
Objective The aims of the present study, in home enteral nutrition (HEN) patients, were to assess patient satisfaction with the service and quality of life (QOL) scores, and to compare QOL scores in HEN patients with general Australian population values.
Methods Self-administered voluntary questionnaires for the present cross-sectional study were mailed out to 322 eligible participants registered with HEN for >5 months. The questionnaires used included a patient satisfaction survey and a validated QOL questionnaire. Data analysis consisted of cross-tabulation, Chi-squared tests and t-tests.
Results There were 112 participants. Patients reported satisfaction with information received before discharge (86%), support received after discharge (74%), expertise of the health professional (87%), access to health professionals experienced with HEN (74%), communication between health professionals (74%), costs of HEN supplies (52%) and delivery of HEN supplies (88%). QOL scores related to physical, psychological, social and environment domains were significantly lower in HEN patients than in the Australian reference population (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in QOL and health satisfaction across different clinical areas (0.737 and 0.316, respectively).
Conclusion Overall, participants were satisfied with HEN services. Participants had lower QOL scores compared with the Australian general population. Improvements to the HEN service were suggested, including sooner follow-up after hospital discharge; more frequent reviews for long-term patients; and the availability of a multidisciplinary team to manage HEN patients.
What is known about the topic? Malnutrition is a common problem in Australian hospitals. Many patients require nutrition support to maintain or improve their nutrition status because of inadequate oral intake, malabsorption of nutrients or because of a disease process. Nutrition support is commonly started in the in-patient setting and, because of faster patient discharge from hospital, HEN is a cost-effective and reliable way of treating patients who continue to need nutrition support after hospital discharge. Inconsistencies exist in service provision of HEN because there is no national or state-wide standardisation of services. Australian studies that have evaluated patient satisfaction with HEN services are lacking. This is of particular importance because HEN service use is increasing.
What does this paper add? This study reveals that patients receiving HEN therapy are mostly satisfied with the service provided. Patients surveyed have expressed important aspects of the HEN service include follow-up and advice from health care professionals, low price and home delivery of supplies, emphasising the importance of adequate clinical services, supply and delivery of HEN. QOL is poorer in the HEN patient population compared with the general Australian population.
What are the implications for practitioners? Standardisation of HEN services is important to ensure uniformity in service provision to HEN patients. Health services adhering to best practice guidelines for HEN will result in the provision of adequate quality of care, and subsequently improved patient satisfaction and adherence to HEN therapy. Adequate service provision and appropriate monitoring and review of HEN patients in the community may also contribute to better health outcomes and better QOL for patients.
References
[1] Smith T, Micklewright A, Hirst A, Stratton R, Baxter J. Annual BANS report: artificial nutrition support in the UK 2000–2010. A report by the British Artificial Nutrition Survey (BANS). Redditch, Worcs: The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition; 2011.[2] NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation. ACI nutrition network: guidelines for home enteral nutrition (HEN) services. 2nd edn. Chatswood, NSW: ACI Home Enteral Nutrition Network; 2012.
[3] Winter J, Streeton C, Kenwood A. Home enteral nutrition practices in Victoria. Aust J Nutr Diet 1999; 56 10–14.
[4] Hebuterne X, Bozzetti F, Moreno Villares JM, Pertkiewicz M, Shaffer J, Staun M, Van Gossum . Home enteral nutrition in adults: a European multicentre survey. Clin Nutr 2003; 22 261–6.
| Home enteral nutrition in adults: a European multicentre survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3ktlGntA%3D%3D&md5=0997ea084a7148acd2dc0be366e84cd9CAS | 12765665PubMed |
[5] Madigan SM. Home enteral-tube feeding: the changing role of the dietitian. Proc Nutr Soc 2003; 62 761–3.
| Home enteral-tube feeding: the changing role of the dietitian.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14692612PubMed |
[6] De Luis DA, Izaola O, Cuellar LA, Terroba MC, Cabezas G, De La Fuente B. Experience over 12 years with home enteral nutrition in a healthcare area of Spain. J Hum Nutr Diet 2013; 26 39–44.
| Experience over 12 years with home enteral nutrition in a healthcare area of Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23651049PubMed |
[7] Parker EK, Faruquie SS, Talbot P. Trends in home enteral nutrition at a tertiary teaching hospital: 2005–2013. Nutr Diet 2015; 72 267–75.
| Trends in home enteral nutrition at a tertiary teaching hospital: 2005–2013.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Lennard-Jones J. A positive approach to nutrition as treatment. Report of a working party chaired by Professor JE Lennard-Jones on the role of enteral and parenteral feeding in hospital and at home. London: Kings Fund Centre; 1992.
[9] Howard L, Heaphey LL, Timchalk M. A review of the current national status of home parenteral and enteral nutrition from the provider and consumer perspective. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1986; 10 416–24.
| A review of the current national status of home parenteral and enteral nutrition from the provider and consumer perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL28zgvVersg%3D%3D&md5=afb1b6214ec11c8fe3ee3072ecb1b9d3CAS | 3091867PubMed |
[10] Herfindal ET, Bernstein LR, Kudzia K, Wong A. Survey of home nutritional support patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1989; 13 255–61.
| Survey of home nutritional support patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL1Mzkt1Orug%3D%3D&md5=be42fdc76b0ea027a458536ff2d7e809CAS | 2503635PubMed |
[11] Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce Home Enteral Nutrition Network. Home enteral nutrition report: nourishing lives at home. Sydney: NSW Health; 2007.
[12] Brotherton AM, Judd PA. Quality of life in adult enteral tube feeding patients. J Hum Nutr Diet 2007; 20 513–22.
| Quality of life in adult enteral tube feeding patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2snnslOrtA%3D%3D&md5=18c6af1b80257ef3ed444d269b833be6CAS | 18001372PubMed |
[13] Murphy B, Hawthorne G, Pinzone T, Evert H. Australian WHOQOL instruments: user’s manual and interpretation guide. Melbourne: Australian WHOQOL Field Study Centre; 2000.
[14] Carter DM, Wheatley C, Payne-James JJ, Pick A. Home nutrition survey in the UK: the patient’s perspective. Clin Nutr 1993; 12 208–12.
| Home nutrition survey in the UK: the patient’s perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD28vitVKrsQ%3D%3D&md5=c572b15b146379a7765e56786eb5cf0eCAS | 16843313PubMed |
[15] Faruquie SS, Parker EK, Talbot P. An evaluation of current HEN services at principal referral hospitals in NSW, Australia. Aust Health Rev 2015; 40 106–13.
| An evaluation of current HEN services at principal referral hospitals in NSW, Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Dietitians Association of Australia. Towards a National Home Enteral Nutrition Service for patients requiring nutrition support at home, a submission prepared by the Dietitians Association of Australia for the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council. Canberra: Dietitians Association of Australia; 2009.
[17] Kovacevich D, Frederick A, Kelly D, Nishikawa R, Young L. Standards for specialised nutrition support: home care patients. Stand Pract 2005; 20 579–90.
[18] American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N) Board of Directors Clinical guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2012; 33 255–9.
[19] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Quality standard for nutrition support in adults. NICE Quality Standard 24. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2012.
[20] Green S. Home enteral nutrition: organisation of services. Art & Sci 2013; 25 14–18.
[21] Braun E, Baidusi A, Alroy G, Azzam ZS. Telephone follow-up improves patients satisfaction following hospital discharge. Eur J Intern Med 2009; 20 221–5.
| Telephone follow-up improves patients satisfaction following hospital discharge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19327616PubMed |
[22] Kurien SW, Simpson G, Grant J, Sanders DS, McAlindon ME. Managing patients with gastrostomy tubes in the community: can a dedicated enteral feed dietetic service reduce hospital readmissions? Eur J Clin Nutr 2012; 66 757–60.
| Managing patients with gastrostomy tubes in the community: can a dedicated enteral feed dietetic service reduce hospital readmissions?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC38vjsl2qtg%3D%3D&md5=b2a4c0ca56c43d80d71f2305e1781c84CAS |
[23] Klek S, Szybinski P, Sierzega M, Szczepanek K, Sumlet M, Kupiec M, Koczur-Szozda E, Steinhoff-Nowak M, Fiqula K, Kulig J. Commercial enteral formulas and nutrition support teams improve the outcome of home enteral tube feeding. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35 380–5.
| Commercial enteral formulas and nutrition support teams improve the outcome of home enteral tube feeding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21527600PubMed |
[24] Scott F, Beech R, Smedley F, Timmis L, Stokes E, Jones P, Roffe C, Bowling TE. Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of the costs and consequences of systematic nutrition team follow-up over 12 mo after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Nutrition 2005; 21 1071–7.
| Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of the costs and consequences of systematic nutrition team follow-up over 12 mo after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16308129PubMed |
[25] Government of Western Australia Department of Health. Home enteral nutrition model of care. Perth: Health Networks Branch; 2010.
[26] Emma S, Carey ES. Nutritional status and quality of life in a cohort of Australian home parenteral nutrition patients: a pilot study. Nutr Diet 2014; 71 79–85.
| Nutritional status and quality of life in a cohort of Australian home parenteral nutrition patients: a pilot study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Baxter JP, Fayers PM, McKinlay AW. The clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire to assess the quality of life of adult patients treated with long-term parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2010; 34 131–42.
| The clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire to assess the quality of life of adult patients treated with long-term parenteral nutrition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19920205PubMed |
[28] Loeser C, Von Herz U, Küchler T, Rzehak P, Muller MJ. Quality of life and nutritional state in patients on home enteral tube feeding. Nutrition 2003; 19 605–11.
| Quality of life and nutritional state in patients on home enteral tube feeding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12831946PubMed |
[29] Caro MMM, Laviano A, Pichard C. Nutritional intervention and quality of life in adult oncology patients. Clin Nutr 2007; 26 289–301.
| Nutritional intervention and quality of life in adult oncology patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[30] Isenring EA, Capra S, Bauer JD. Nutrition intervention is beneficial in oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the gastrointestinal or head and neck area. Br J Cancer 2004; 91 447–52.
| Nutrition intervention is beneficial in oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy to the gastrointestinal or head and neck area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2czns1Clsg%3D%3D&md5=e7db92b9d3799efa1e822be9014462fcCAS | 15226773PubMed |
[31] Isenring EA, Bauer JD, Capra S. The scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its association with quality of life in ambulatory patients receiving radiotherapy. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57 305–9.
| The scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its association with quality of life in ambulatory patients receiving radiotherapy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s%2FmtVOmtg%3D%3D&md5=911a4714a8bde1f747a0143fb0e1da62CAS |
[32] Lis CG, Gupta D, Lammersfeld CA, Markman M, Vashi P. Role of nutritional status in predicting quality of life outcomes in cancer: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr J 2012; 11 27
| Role of nutritional status in predicting quality of life outcomes in cancer: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22531478PubMed |
[33] Schneider SM, Pouget I, Staccini P, Rampal P, Hebuterne X. Quality of life in long-term home enteral nutrition patients. Clin Nutr 2000; 19 23–8.
| Quality of life in long-term home enteral nutrition patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7mslCjsg%3D%3D&md5=57357c644b1c8a712041a132e10e93b8CAS | 10700530PubMed |
[34] Sprangers A, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48 1507–15.
| Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1MzisFynsg%3D%3D&md5=ee664bc5acc156b6405b68be1a078be2CAS |
[35] Schwartz CE, Bode R, Repucci N, Becker J, Sprangers MAG, Fayers M. The clinical significance of adaptation to changing health: a meta-analysis of response shift. Qual Life Res 2006; 15 1533–50.
| 17031503PubMed |
[36] Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MAG, Detmar SB, Wever LDV, Schornagel JH. Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer 1999; 81 87–94.
| Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvhsFGmug%3D%3D&md5=d7db1071abe713ca4db22f9ccfdfe651CAS |
[37] Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Hershey J, Baron J, Mohr T, Asch DA, Jepson C. Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion? Med Decis Making 2001; 21 190–9.
| Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzhtlGksA%3D%3D&md5=5d924d2d4e914f6fd6f00e6fae5895b3CAS | 11386626PubMed |
[38] Chen HL, Shih SC, Bair MJ, Lin IT, Wu CH. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the enteral feeding of the elderly. Int J Gerontol 2011; 5 135–8.
| Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in the enteral feeding of the elderly.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39] Madigan SM, O’Neill S, Clarke J, L’Estrange F, MacAuley DC. Assessing the dietetic needs of different patient groups receiving enteral tube feeding in primary care. J Hum Nutr Diet 2002; 15 179–84.
| Assessing the dietetic needs of different patient groups receiving enteral tube feeding in primary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12028512PubMed |
[40] Cawsey SI, Soo J, Gramlich LM. Home enteral nutrition: outcomes relative to indication. Nutr Clin Pract 2010; 25 296–300.
| Home enteral nutrition: outcomes relative to indication.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20581325PubMed |
[41] Sharpe L, Butow P, Smith C, McConnell D, Clarke S. Changes in quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Evidence of response shift and response restriction. J Psychosom Res 2005; 58 497–504.
| Changes in quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. Evidence of response shift and response restriction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16125516PubMed |
[42] Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Corbiere M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hanley J, Cohen R. Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift? Qual Life Res 2005; 14 611–27.
| Change in quality of life of people with stroke over time: true change or response shift?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16022056PubMed |
[43] Barclay-Goddard R, King J, Dubouloz CJ, Schwartz CE. Building on transformative learning and response shift theory to investigate health-related quality of life changes over time in individuals with chronic health conditions and disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 214–20.
| Building on transformative learning and response shift theory to investigate health-related quality of life changes over time in individuals with chronic health conditions and disability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22289229PubMed |
