Impact of nutritional risk screening in hospitalized patients on management, outcome and costs: A retrospective study

Abstract

Despite an improvement in screening, management of nutritionally 'at-risk' patients is not totally covered yet. Being nutritionally 'at-risk' affects three in every five patients and is associated with increased mortality and hospitalization costs.

Need for the Integrated Nutrition Pathway for Acute Care (INPAC): gaps in current nutrition care in five Canadian hospitals

“…In terms of screening (usually completed by nursing staff or diet clerks), less than half of patients were screened for malnutrition risk at admission. This is consistent with other research indicating that nutrition screening rates are generally poor, ranging from 42% of patients [36] to 64% [10]. Three of the five hospital sites were routinely screening, with only two having relatively good completion rates (76 and 66% of patients) and using validated tools.…”

“…In line with other literature, these results indicate that there is a gap in current and best nutrition care practice in Canadian hospitals [9,24,27,35,36]. A systematic best practice pathway, such as INPAC, is needed to help identify those patients that might need additional nutrition intervention and ensure dietitians are seeing the patients most in need of their specialized services [9].…”

Pressure ulcer dressings in critical patients: a cost analysis

“…Mean age was 52.2 (±20.7) years, ranging from 19 to 81 years. Most of the sample was composed of women (8,53.3%), and 6 (40%) were single, 3 (20%) were married, 4 (26.7%) were divorced, and 2 (13.3%) were widowers. Most of the participants had not completed elementary school (9 (60%).…”

“…The most common reasons for ICU admission were respiratory problems (7,46.6%), circulatory problems (4, 26.7%) and digestive problems (4, 26.6%). In addition to the baseline diagnosis, they presented the following comorbidities: systemic arterial hypertension (8,53.3%), diabetes mellitus (3, 20.0%), chronic kidney failure (3, 20.0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (3, 20.0%), and neurological disorders (2, 13.3%). Four patients (26.6%) were at nutritional risk.…”

“…Nutritional risk was assessed with the Nutritional Risk Screening tool, which is composed of two dimensions: nutritional condition and disease severity, measured on an ordinal scale from 0 to 3. The final result was represented by the sum of the scores, and patients with values equal or higher than 3 were considered to be at nutritional risk (8) . The second section gathered data on wound characteristics, and the third presented a checklist with the materials used during procedures.…”