Reducing the Duration to Reach Full Enteral and Oral Feeding Volumes for Very Preterm and Extremely Preterm Infants: A Quality Improvement Project.

Only 53 infants were studied before and 43 after, and the authors state the small number prevented determination of significant efficacy. The comparison was historical usual practice versus the intervention period, not a randomized or concurrent control group. The program bundled several changes at once, including enteral feeding protocol, oral readiness assessment, oral motor intervention, breastfeeding referral and education, and team feeding discussions, so it cannot show which component mattered. Significant results appeared only in gestational age subgroups, not in the overall infant outcomes. The provider survey measured acceptance and feasibility, not whether infants fed better or stayed shorter. The paper reports length of stay values inconsistently: Table 3 labels them as mean values, while the text calls the 2023 value a median. The authors note that declining birth rates reduced admissions during the project, limiting the number of patients available.

The authors declared no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies, and no competing interests. The publication types note non-U.S. government research support.

Do not conclude that this bundle reliably speeds feeding for all preterm infants. The overall time to full enteral feeding, full oral feeding, and length of stay did not show statistically significant differences, and the positive subgroup findings came from small groups receiving several supports together.