4.7 Article

Malnutrition and poor food intake are associated with prolonged hospital stay, frequent readmissions, and greater in-hospital mortality: Results from the Nutrition Care Day Survey 2010

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 737-745

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.11.021

Keywords

Malnutrition; Poor food intake; Disease type and severity; Length of stay; Readmissions; In-hospital mortality

Funding

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. AuSPEN
  3. Queensland Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims: The Australasian Nutrition Care Day Survey (ANCDS) ascertained if malnutrition and poor food intake are independent risk factors for health-related outcomes in Australian and New Zealand hospital Patients. Methods: Phase 1 recorded nutritional status (Subjective Global Assessment) and 24-h food intake (0, 25, 50, 75, 100% intake). Outcomes data (Phase 2) were collected 90-days post-Phase 1 and included length of hospital stay (LOS), readmissions and in-hospital mortality. Results: Of 3122 participants (47% females, 65 +/- 18 years) from 56 hospitals, 32% were malnourished and 23% consumed <= 25% of the offered food. Malnourished patients had greater median LOS (15 days vs. 10 days, p < 0.0001) and readmissions rates (36% vs. 30%, p = 0.001). Median LOS for patients consuming <= 25% of the food was higher than those consuming <= 50% (13 vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001). The odds of 90-day in-hospital mortality were twice greater for malnourished patients (CI: 1.09-3.34, p = 0.023) and those consuming <= 25% of the offered food (Cl: 1.13-3.51, p = 0.017), respectively. Conclusion: The ANCDS establishes that malnutrition and poor food intake are independently associated with in-hospital mortality in the Australian and New Zealand acute care setting. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 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

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available