RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown an increase in the number of patients who use enteral nutrition at home and the benefits of this type of nutrition care. However, little is known about the risk of bacterial contamination of enteral formulations prepared at home. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the microbiological quality of home-prepared enteral formulations. METHODS: This study is a systematic review, registered in PROSPERO. The search for articles was carried out in databases and gray literature. Eligible studies that microbiologically analyzed homemade enteral preparations (HEPs), blended enteral preparations (BEPs), and commercial enteral formulas (CEFs) that were prepared at home were selected. The types and quantities of microorganisms, sources of contamination in the handling area, and the consequences of contamination (signs and symptoms) were the subjects extracted from the studies. RESULTS: Five studies evaluated 217 enteral formulations. It was found that 72.81% of the enteral formulations exceeded the acceptable bacterial count in the case of at least one of the analyzed microorganisms. This result corresponded to 93.58% (n = 73) of the HEPs, 81.96% (n = 50) of the BEPs, and 44.87% (n = 35) of the CEFs. The presence of 10 different microorganisms was identified in the enteral formulations, and total coliforms and mesophilic aerobics were the microorganisms found in the greatest quantity in the samples. CONCLUSION: The three types of home-prepared enteral formulations showed unsatisfactory microbiological quality, indicating poor hygiene conditions during food handling.
Assuntos
Nutrição Enteral , Alimentos Formulados , Humanos , Alimentos Formulados/análise , Manipulação de Alimentos , BactériasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk to patients' health when using home-prepared enteral tube feeding. The objective of this study was to explore the differences in hygiene conditions and microbial load of different types of home-prepared enteral tube feeding and explore associations between those differences and food handlers' characteristics. METHODS: We evaluated 96 enteral formulations, considering 3 types used by adult patients: homemade enteral preparations (HEPs), blended enteral preparations (BEPs), and commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Enteral formulations were collected from homes and microbiologically analyzed. Hygiene criteria were assessed using a checklist, applied during the handling stages. The profile of the food handler was reviewed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: 82.3% (79/96) exceeded acceptable bacterial counts, which was 10³ colony-forming units per gram for aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and for total coliforms (35 °C), Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus sp, and Staphylococcus coagulase-positive, if present in the enteral formulations. The number of inadequate samples was higher in HEPs and BEPs than in CEFs. Considering the hygiene criteria, the home-prepared enteral tube feedings did not differ significantly. There was a significant difference among hygiene conditions considering the variables "monthly family income" and "food training." CONCLUSION: Regardless of the type of enteral formulations used by patients, when handled at home, there was a risk of contamination. However, contaminants present in enteral formulations can be easily controlled with improvements in hygiene measures as well as with greater guidance and control during the handling stages.