Evaluation of prevalence of food intake monitoring during acute hospitalization and its association with malnutrition screening scores of inpatients who were not considered for enteral or parenteral nutrition

Irena Papier,Irit Chermesh,Tanya Mashiach,Tomasz Banasiewicz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2023.112031

IF: 4.893

Nutrition

Abstract: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 no 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 ≥ 2. 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, hospital-acquired pressure injury, or the rate of oral nutritional intervention. MUST scores ≥ 2 were not significantly associated with intake reporting. Increased probability of having food intake reported was found in 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 predictive 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.