<p><strong>Background:</strong> Insufficient nutritional support is associated with prolonged hospitalisation, impaired wound healing and impaired survival for patients in intensive care. In severe sepsis and septic chock, calculation of nutritional need is complicated since the metabolism is affected by decease. <strong>Aim:</strong> The aim of the study was to investigate nutritional support and to examine the quality of nursing documentation of nutritional status and nutritional support in patient records in severe sepsis and septic chock.  <strong>Method:</strong> The study was conducted as a retrospective investigation where 64 patient records were studied. The quality of documentation was examined in 10 patient records using an examinational model.</p><p><strong>Findings:</strong> Calculation of average nutritional support showed insufficient supply particularly in the two first days of intensive care. During the next five days nutritional supply was higher but individual variation was seen, why a clear picture of nutritional support is hard to detect. Examining the quality of nursing documentation revealed that most records contained nutritional status and treatment, while anamnesis, nutritional goals and nutritional diagnoses were rare. <strong>Conclusion:</strong> The study is of limited significance, but could be used to map out the present regimen of nutritional support. Future nursing research could include the caloric need and the amount of enteral support patients in severe sepsis and septic shock tolerates.</p>

Background: Insufficient nutritional support is associated with prolonged hospitalisation, impaired wound healing and impaired survival for patients in intensive care. In severe sepsis and septic chock, calculation of nutritional need is complicated since the metabolism is affected by decease. Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate nutritional support and to examine the quality of nursing documentation of nutritional status and nutritional support in patient records in severe sepsis and septic chock.  Method: The study was conducted as a retrospective investigation where 64 patient records were studied. The quality of documentation was examined in 10 patient records using an examinational model. Findings: Calculation of average nutritional support showed insufficient supply particularly in the two first days of intensive care. During the next five days nutritional supply was higher but individual variation was seen, why a clear picture of nutritional support is hard to detect. Examining the quality of nursing documentation revealed that most records contained nutritional status and treatment, while anamnesis, nutritional goals and nutritional diagnoses were rare. Conclusion: The study is of limited significance, but could be used to map out the present regimen of nutritional support. Future nursing research could include the caloric need and the amount of enteral support patients in severe sepsis and septic shock tolerates.