J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020 Oct;120(10):1745-1753. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.01.015. Epub 2020 Mar 26.
In 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States.
A cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and, if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges.
Seven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n=558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; and 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; and 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting.
PN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This article has been approved by the Academy's Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in Nutrition in Clinical Practice. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.
2014 年和 2017 年,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)分别授权注册营养师(RDN)在医院和长期护理机构拥有与营养相关的医嘱权限。尽管这一实践有所推进,但缺乏描述当前肠外营养(PN)和肠内营养(EN)医嘱实践的信息。营养支持营养师(Dietitians in Nutrition Support)是营养与饮食学会(Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics)的一个营养实践小组,也是肠外与肠内营养学会(American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition,ASPEN)的营养实践分会,他们利用一项调查来描述美国 RDN 进行 PN 和 EN 医嘱的实践情况。
本研究采用横断面研究设计来描述 RDN 的 PN 和 EN 医嘱权限。受访者被要求描述他们的 PN 和 EN 医嘱权限、主要实践场所、主要服务的患者人群、营养专业认证、最高学位、职业年限,如果适用,还需描述他们之前被拒绝医嘱权限的性质或不申请医嘱权限的原因。
702 名 RDN 完成了调查(12%的回复率),其中 664 名 RDN 提供了完整的数据。大多数受访者(n=558)照顾成人/老年患者。在这一组中,47%的人没有 PN 医嘱权限;14%的人可以开具和签署 PN 医嘱;28%的人可以开具 PN 医嘱并需要提供者联合签字;10%的人可以开具部分 PN 医嘱并需要提供者联合签字。19%的 RDN 没有 EN 医嘱权限;37%的人可以开具和签署 EN 医嘱;44%的人可以开具 EN 医嘱并需要提供者联合签字。有医嘱权限的 RDN 更有可能获得营养专业认证,并且在学术或社区医院工作。
PN 和 EN 医嘱权限因机构和州的要求而有所不同。未来需要研究描述与 RDN 医嘱权限相关的结果。本文已经得到学院研究、国际和科学事务团队以及理事会研究和 ASPEN 董事会的批准。本文已经与《临床实践中的营养》杂志合作出版,并获得了许可。这两篇文章内容完全相同,只是为了符合每个期刊的风格,在细微的风格和拼写方面存在一些差异。在引用本文时,可以使用这两个引注之一。