Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/34693
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorVisvanathan, R.-
dc.contributor.authorPenhall, R.-
dc.contributor.authorChapman, I.-
dc.date.issued2004-
dc.identifier.citationAge and Ageing, 2004; 33(3):260-265-
dc.identifier.issn0002-0729-
dc.identifier.issn1468-2834-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/34693-
dc.descriptionCopyright © British Geriatrics Society 2004-
dc.description.abstract<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective study.<h4>Subjects</h4>65 (21 males) patients older than 65 years.<h4>Setting</h4>Sub-acute care facility.<h4>Measurements</h4>The Mini Nutritional Assessment, standard nutritional assessment, 'rapid screen' and discharge outcome.<h4>Results</h4>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/m(2); 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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityRenuka Visvanathan, Robert Penhall, Ian Chapman-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherOxford Univ Press-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afh078-
dc.subjectscreening-
dc.subjectelderly-
dc.subjectunder-nutrition-
dc.subjectpoor outcome-
dc.subjectsub-acute care-
dc.titleNutritional screening of older people in a sub-acute care facility in Australia and its relation to discharge outcomes-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ageing/afh078-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidVisvanathan, R. [0000-0002-1303-9479]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.