A Canadian Survey of Perceived Barriers to Initiation and Continuation of Enteral Feeding in PICUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinicians believe nutrition support is important; however, delivery of enteral nutrition may be delayed or interrupted due to a lack of guidelines or perceived contraindications to administration. The aim of this national survey was to examine the knowledge and perceived barriers among clinicians which prevent enteral nutrition administration to PICU patients. DESIGN: The survey consisted of 23 questions (19 primary and four branching). The survey was validated using a semistructured pilot test by three pediatric critical care intensivists and two pediatric critical care registered dietitians external to the study team. SETTING: The survey was electronically distributed to clinicians in all PICUs across Canada. POPULATION: One hundred sixty-two PICU clinicians, including 96 staff intensivists, eight clinical assistants, 36 fellows, and 22 registered dietitians from PICUs across Canada. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey was administered from January to March 2013. The response rate was 50% (55 staff intensivists, two clinical assistants, nine fellows, and 15 registered dietitians). There was high variability among clinicians regarding reasons to delay the onset of enteral nutrition or interrupt enteral nutrition administration. High variability (> 70% agreement and < 10% disagreement or vice versa) was found for some reasons to delay or interrupt enteral nutrition, including lactates (rising or > 2 or > 4 mmol/L), high gastric residual volumes, CT/MRI scans, and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Sixty-eight percent of PICU clinicians reported no written feeding protocol to be in place. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is high variability among clinicians regarding acceptable procedural and clinical barriers to enteral nutrition administration; this may be improved by a standardized feeding protocol. Therefore, further research must be conducted to provide clinicians with evidence to support their practices for enteral nutrition administration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".