MEDPass or conventional administration of oral nutritional supplements
- 08.05.2024
- English Articles
- Katja Uhlmann
- Joya Lüthi
- Denise Bachmann
- Anina Schoenholzer
- Silvia Kurmann
Peer reviewed / Manuscript (original) submitted: 31 August 2023 / revision accepted: 3 January 2024
The patients' perspective
Introduction
Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) or the risk of it is common in geriatric patients in European hospitals, with a prevalence of almost 30% [1]. It is associated with lower quality of life, higher morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stay and higher healthcare costs [2–5].
Early detection of PEM and individualized nutritional therapy are therefore of great importance [2]. Oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) is an established and efficient treatment option [6, 7]. There are no standardized recommendations for the administration times of ONS. It is given in varying amounts, usually as a snack, in the morning, afternoon and late evening, also known as the conventional mode (CM) [8]. An innovative mode of administration is the MEDPass mode (Medication Pass Nutritional Supplement Program, MPM) [8]. In the MPM, the ONS is served together with the medication three to four times a day in smaller quantities than in the CM (50–120 ml), in particular to achieve more optimal adherence to therapy [8, 9]. ...
Abstract
Oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) is administered conventionally between meals (CM) or alternatively with medication in MEDPass mode (MPM) when energy and protein intake is low.
The patients' perspective on the modes of administration has hardly been investigated and is the aim of this study.
Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with geriatric inpatients. The structuring qualitative content analysis was conducted for twelve interviews and generated three main categories and eight subcategories. The main categories include the topics of nursing and physicians, administration and intake of ONS and the perception of ONS. Individual patients' preferences were revealed. The CM was rated well overall. The MPM was partially criticized with regard to its integration into everyday clinical practice.
Patients' autonomy should be the focus and the mode of administration should be regularly evaluated and re-evaluated with the patients.
