Journal
NUTRITION
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2023.112031
Keywords
Food intake monitoring; Nursing practice; Malnutrition risk; Hospitalized patients; Decreased food intake; Malnutrition screening tool
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Nurses can identify malnutrition risk through food intake monitoring, and this study measured the prevalence of food intake reporting and its association with malnutrition screening scores and patient characteristics.
Objectives: Malnutrition risk can be recognized by nurses using screening tools and food intake monitoring. We measured the prevalence of food intake reporting and its association with malnutrition screening scores or other patient characteristics. Methods: This retrospective cohort study collected hospital database information regarding patients aged >= 18 y who were hospitalized for >= 7 consecutive days and were orally fed or had medical records that tube feeding or parenteral nutrition had been administered. Data were collected and statistically analyzed focusing on food intake reporting, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) scores, oral nutritional intervention, and other secondary characteristics. Results: Out of 5155 patients admitted to two internal medicine departments over 1 y (July 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019), 1087 fulfilled the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 72.4 +/- 14.6 y; of these, 74.6% had sufficient food intake reports. No food intake was reported for one-third of patients with MUST scores >= There were no differences between the groups of patients with and without reported food intake with regard to MUST scores, sex, mean albumin level, comorbidity, length of stay, all-cause in-hospital mortality, hospi-tal-acquired pressure injury, or the rate of oral nutritional intervention. MUST scores >= 2 were not signifi-cantly associated with intake reporting. Increased probability of having food intake reported was found patients ages >= 70 y (adjusted odds ratio = 1.36; P = 0.036 [95% CI, 1.02-1.82]) and those who had Norton scores < 13 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.60; P = 0.013 [95% CI, 1.10-2.31]). However, the model had a weak pre-dictive efficacy (area under the curve = 0.577; P < 0.0001 [95% CI, 0.538-0.616]).Conclusions: More adherence to food intake monitoring guidelines is needed.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available