Factors Associated With the Initiation of Comfort‐Focused Nutrition Care Orders for Long‐Term Care Residents at End of Life

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundComfort‐focused nutrition orders are recommended to manage eating changes among long‐term care (LTC) residents nearing the end of life, though little is known about their current use. This investigation aims to describe current practices and identify resident‐level and time‐dependent factors associated with comfort‐focused nutrition orders in this context.MethodsData were retrospectively extracted from resident charts of decedents (≥65 years at death, admitted ≥6 months) in 18 LTC homes from two sampling frames across southern Ontario, Canada. Observations occurred at 6 months (baseline), 3 months, 1 month and 2 weeks prior to death. Extracted data included functional measures (e.g. cognitive performance, health instability) at baseline, formalised restorative and comfort‐focused nutrition care interventions at each timepoint and eating changes reported in the progress notes in 2 weeks following each timepoint. Logistic regression and time‐varying logistic regression models determined resident‐level (e.g. functional characteristics) and time‐dependent factors (e.g. eating changes) associated with receiving a comfort‐focused nutrition order.ResultsLess than one‐third (30.5%; n = 50) of 164 participants (61.0% female; mean age = 88.3 ± 7.5 years) received a comfort‐focused nutrition order, whereas most (99%) received at least one restorative nutrition intervention to support oral food intake. Discontinuation of nutrition interventions was rare (8.5%). Comfort orders were more likely with health instability (OR [95% CI] = 4.35 [1.49, 13.76]), within 2 weeks of death (OR = 5.50 [1.70, 17.11]), when an end‐of‐life conversation had occurred since the previous timepoint (OR = 5.66 [2.83, 11.33]), with discontinued nutrition interventions (OR = 6.31 [1.75, 22.72]), with co‐occurrence of other care plan modifications (OR = 1.48 [1.10, 1.98]) and with a greater number of eating changes (OR = 1.19 [1.02, 1.38]), especially dysphagia (OR = 2.59 [1.09, 6.17]), at the preceding timepoint.ConclusionsComfort‐focused nutrition orders were initiated for less than one‐third of decedents and most often in the end stages of life, possibly representing missed opportunities to support the quality of life for this vulnerable population. An increase in eating changes, including new dysphagia, may signal a need for proactive end‐of‐life conversations involving comfort nutrition care options.Implications for PracticeEarly and open conversations with residents and family about potential eating changes and comfort‐focused nutrition care options should be encouraged and planned for among geriatric nursing teams working in LTC. These conversations may be beneficial even as early as resident admission to the home.