4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Acute Diverticulitis Is at Significant Risk of Malnutrition: an Analysis of Hospitalized Patients in a Medicine Department

期刊

出版社

MEDICAL UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-561

关键词

Nutritional Risk Security (NRS2002) System; acute diverticular disease; nutritional treatment; hospitalization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aim: The Nutritional Risk Security (NRS2002) System is recommended for hospitalized patients in order to assess their nutritional status. However, studies assessing large-scale systematic screening policies are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a screening strategy concerning all admissions for diverticular disease (DD) of the colon in the Department of Medicine of a Tertiary Hospital. Methods: All patients suffering from acute diverticulitis (AD) and admitted to the Medicine Department from January 1st to 31 December 2017, were pre-screened by NRS2002 System by the nursing staff of the Nutritional team at the day of the admission. If the pre-screening was positive, the patients were referred to a supplementary assessment performed by a dietician. Results: The global number of admissions in the observational period was 4,667 and 133 patients suffered from AD. A positive pre-screening test was recorded in 97 (72.9%) patients: a NRS2002 score > 3, describing a severe impaired nutritional status was found in 61 patients (62.9%). All 97 patients with a NRS2002 positive screening received initial nutritional support by oral supplements (17 patients, 17.52%) or enteral nutrition (22 patients, 22.68%) or total parenteral nutrition (58 patients, 59.8%). The mean length of hospital stay for all 133 patients was 6,9 days. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer for patients with a positive NRS2002, with a mean of 18 days (p = 0.01) Conclusions: A large number of hospitalized patients due to AD are at nutritional risk and have a significantly longer hospital stay.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据