Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on February 23, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Age and Ageing 2004; 33: 260-265
Age and Ageing Vol. 33 No. 3 © British Geriatrics Society 2004; all rights reserved
Research Paper |
Nutritional screening of older people in a sub-acute care facility in Australia and its relation to discharge outcomes
1 Department of Geriatric and Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia
2 Department of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Address correspondence to: R. Visvanathan. Fax: (+61) 8 822 36472. Email: rvisvanathan{at}ozemail.com.au
Abstract
Objectives: to determine the prevalence of under-nutrition using brief screening methods and to determine the relation between these results and (1) those of a more standard nutritional assessment and (2) discharge outcomes.
Design: prospective study.
Subjects: 65 (21 males) patients older than 65 years.
Setting: sub-acute care facility.
Measurements: the Mini Nutritional Assessment, standard nutritional assessment, ‘rapid screen’ and discharge outcome.
Results: the prevalence of under-nutrition was high, ranging from 35.4% to 43.1%, depending on the screening method used. Compared to the standard nutritional assessment the ‘rapid screen’ consisting of (1) body mass index <22 kg/m2; and/or (2) reported weight loss of >7.5% over the previous 3 months and the two-tiered Mini Nutritional Assessment process (at risk subjects (46% of total) further evaluated using standard nutritional assessment) had sensitivities of 78.6 and 89.5% and specificities of 97.3 and 87.5% respectively in diagnosing under-nutrition. Under-nourished patients as identified by the standard nutritional assessment (50.0% (under-nourished) versus 21.6% (nourished); P = 0.017), the two-tiered Mini Nutritional Assessment process (50.0% (under-nourished) versus 21.6% (nourished); P = 0.017) and the rapid screen (56.5% (under-nourished) versus 21.4% (nourished); P = 0.004) were more likely to be discharged to an acute hospital or an accommodation with increased support (poor discharge outcomes) than nourished patients.
Conclusion: all screening methods identified patients more likely to have a poor discharge outcome. The highly specific but less sensitive ‘rapid screen’ may be the best method in facilities with limited resources as it can be easily incorporated into nursing/medical admissions and avoids biochemical investigations in all patients. The more sensitive two-tiered Mini Nutritional Assessment is better if resources permit.
Keywords: sub-acute care, screening, under-nutrition, elderly, poor outcome
Received May 30, 2003; accepted in revised form November 22, 2003.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. M. Bauer, M. J. Kaiser, P. Anthony, Y. Guigoz, and C. C. Sieber The Mini Nutritional Assessment(R)--Its History, Today's Practice, and Future Perspectives Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2008; 23(4): 388 - 396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Espaulella, A. Arnau, D. Cubi, J. Amblas, and A. Yanez Time-dependent prognostic factors of 6-month mortality in frail elderly patients admitted to post-acute care Age Ageing, July 1, 2007; 36(4): 407 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 23 Apr 2004 to 23 Jul 2004 Evid. Based Nurs., October 1, 2004; 7(4): e4 - e4. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Other articles noted Evid. Based Med., September 1, 2004; 9(5): e5 - e5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|