Table 3 Intervention delivery among staff and patients

 Free fluids diet prescribed on POD0

27 (79%) patients

•Clear fluid diets were used due to extensive adhesiolysis (n = 3); and no reason given/observed (n = 4).

 ONS delivered POD0

21 (62%) patients

•Not prescribed (n = 5); patient admitted to ward following ONS prescription cut-off time (n = 2); patient nil-by-mouth (n = 1); unsuitable ONS formula for dietary requirements (n = 1); and no reason given/observed (n = 4).

 HEHP diet prescribed POD1

0 (0%) patients

•No explanation provided in patients’ medical records. However, interview data revelled staffs’ views on prescribing solids after surgery differed greatly from this.

 ONS prescribed TDS^a

34 (100%) patients

Not applicable.

 Awareness and education session(s)

41 (84%) nurses

•Missed session due to shift rotation (n = 8).

 Awareness and education session(s)

0 (0%) doctors

•Unclear, however, it was noted the colorectal fellow went on unanticipated leave for approximately one week at the start of data collection.

 Ward orientation (nutrition) session(s)

0 (0%) doctors

•Unclear, however, the staff members mentioned in Table 1 who had conflicting views of the intervention were managerial level members of dietetics which may have influenced intervention delivery by the ward dietitian.

 Meal ordering awareness

17 (50%) patients

•No reason recorded, however, likely attributed to unclear responsibilities (e.g. one week prior to data collection, this role became a shared responsibility between assistant in nursing staff and each patients’ treating nurse).

 Nutrition-related messages

23^b (92%) patients

•No reason observed (n = 2).

 Preoperative nutrition handout

25 (74%) patients

•Appointment occurred off-site (n = 1) or over the phone (n = 1); and no reason documented (n = 7).