fracture & trauma

Introduction: Oral nutritional supplement (ONS) prescription is commonly recommend for malnourished patients in hospital. However, compliance to ONS is often low. Ice cream may be a promising nutritional intervention. We undertook a study designed to compare the acceptability of high protein, fortified, ice cream called Nottingham-Ice Cream (N-ICE CREAM) with routinely prescribed milkshake ONS.

Methods: Fifty older (≥ 65 years) inpatients with hip or spine fractures were recruited from Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham. Patients were randomised into two groups, receiving two days of N-ICE CREAM and milkshake ONS. Group A received N-ICE CREAM first and Group B, milkshake ONS first. We measured compliance, acceptability (hedonic characteristics; rating 0 dislike a lot to 7 like a lot), attitudes towards length of prescription (rating 0 very unconfident to 4 very confident) and preference.

Results: Mean (standard deviation, SD) age of patients was 80.6 (7.7) years. The majority (n = 21, 67.7%) preferred N-ICE CREAM. Mean compliance to N-ICE CREAM was greater in both Groups (Group A (n = 22) 69.9 (30.0) % and Group B (n = 26) 56.3 (39.3)%) compared to the milkshake ONS (Group A (n = 22) 43.4 (4.7) % and Group B (n = 26) 53.6 ± (40.2) %). This was statistically significant in Group A (p < 0.05). Mean hedonic ratings were higher for N-ICE CREAM with an overall impression score of 5.8 compared with 4.6 for milkshake ONS. Confidence score for both products decreased with increasing time length. Both had an overall confidence score of 2.9.

Conclusions: High protein N-ICE CREAM is more accepted and preferred by older patients with a hip or spine fracture compared to standard milkshake ONS. Further research should explore optimal timing for N-ICE CREAM administration and long-term compliance, as well as clinical outcomes.

Introduction: Malnutrition is a debilitating condition in hospitalised older people. There has been limited studies exploring dietary intake and oral nutritional supplement (ONS) compliance in these people. The purpose of this service evaluation was to observe daily energy and protein intake, plate waste and ONS compliance and to report food waste at ward level.

Methods: Three-day dietary (food-only) intake and plate waste of 19 older (≥ 65 years) people on a hospital trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) ward were assessed. Patients were categorised as ‘nutritionally well’ or ‘nutritionally vulnerable’ as per British Dietetics Association’s (BDA) Nutrition and Hydration Digest criteria. Dietary intake was calculated by a Dietitian and compared with adjusted BDA standards to exclude energy and protein from drinks. Ward plate and food trolley waste were weighed after lunch and supper for five days. Thirty-three ONS from 11 patients were collected before disposal and weighed.

Results: Mean age of the patients were 84 ± 9 years (9 female, and 10 male) with the most common injury hip fracture (68.4%). Mean (standard deviation, SD) intake for ‘nutritionally well’ was 1592 (257) kcal/day and 65.7(8.5) g/day protein and ‘nutritionally vulnerable’ (n= 15) 643 (354) kcal/day and 24.8 (14.0) g/day protein. Plate waste for ‘nutritionally well’ was 4.1 (5.8)% at main meals and 1.7 (3.4)% at pudding and for ‘nutritionally vulnerable’ 53.1 (26.6)% at main meals and 38.6 (32.2)% at pudding. Compliance to ONS was 28.3 (38.8)%. The combined mealtime plate waste weighed 6.2 (1.2) kg/day and food-trolley waste 6.2 (0.9) kg/day. This equates to approximately 4526kg/year (4.5T).

Conclusions: Energy and protein intake and compliance to ONS in older T&O patients is sub-optimal. Food waste is high and urgently needs addressing. Further, interventions are warranted to improve dietary intake in hospital and to explore the acceptability of alternative ONS food/drink styles.