MALNUTRITION AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ELDERLY PATIENTS FROM A SINGAPORE ACUTE HOSPITAL Thesis submitted by YEN PENG LIM Bachelor of Science (Nutrition and Dietetics) (Hons) Master of Health Science (Gerontology) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation School of Public Health Queensland University of Technology 2010
394
Embed
MALNUTRITION AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ELDERLY PATIENTS ... · Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital ii Abstract Older adults, especially
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MALNUTRITION AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES
IN ELDERLY PATIENTS FROM A
SINGAPORE ACUTE HOSPITAL
Thesis submitted by
YEN PENG LIM
Bachelor of Science (Nutrition and Dietetics) (Hons)
Master of Health Science (Gerontology)
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
School of Public Health
Queensland University of Technology
2010
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
i
Keywords
Acute care; body mass index (BMI); clinical outcomes; corrected arm muscle area
computed during the screening process so that the dietetic technician was blinded to
the results of all the tools. Nutritional status was assessed by a single dietitian, who
was blinded to the screening results, using four malnutrition assessment methods
[Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), body
mass index (BMI), and corrected arm muscle area (CAMA)]. The SGA rating was
completed prior to computation of the total MNA score to minimise bias. Participants
were reassessed for weight, arm anthropometry (mid-arm circumference, triceps
skinfold thickness), and SGA rating at discharge from the ward. The nutritional
assessment tools and indices were validated against clinical outcomes (length of stay
(LOS) >11days, discharge to higher level care, 3-month readmission, 6-month
mortality, and 6-month Modified Barthel Index) using multivariate logistic regression.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
iv
The covariates included age, gender, race, dementia (defined using DSM IV criteria),
depression (defined using a single question “Do you often feel sad or depressed?”),
severity of illness (defined using a modified version of the Severity of Illness Index),
comorbidities (defined using Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed
drugs and admission functional status (measured using Modified Barthel Index; MBI).
The nutrition screening tools were validated against the SGA, which was found to be
the most appropriate nutritional assessment tool from this study (refer section 5.6)
Prevalence of malnutrition on admission was 35% (defined by SGA), and it was
significantly associated with characteristics such as swallowing impairment
(malnourished vs well-nourished: 20% vs 5%), poor appetite (77% vs 24%), dementia
(44% vs 28%), depression (34% vs 22%), and poor functional status (MBI 48.3+29.8
vs 65.1+25.4). The SGA had the highest completion rate (100%) and was predictive
of the highest number of clinical outcomes: LOS >11days (OR 2.11, 95% CI [1.17-
3.83]), 3-month readmission (OR 1.90, 95% CI [1.05-3.42]) and 6-month mortality
(OR 3.04, 95% CI [1.28-7.18]), independent of a comprehensive range of covariates
including functional status, disease severity and cognitive function. SGA is therefore
the most appropriate nutritional assessment tool for defining malnutrition. The TTSH
NST was identified as the most suitable nutritional screening tool with the best
diagnostic performance against the SGA (AUC 0.865, sensitivity 84%, specificity
79%). Overall, 44% of participants experienced weight loss during hospitalisation,
and 27% had weight loss >1% per week over median LOS 9 days (range 2-50). Well-
nourished (45%) and malnourished (43%) participants were equally prone to
experiencing decline in nutritional status (defined by weight loss >1% per week).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
v
Those with reduced nutritional status were more likely to be discharged to higher
level care (adjusted OR 2.46, 95% CI [1.27-4.70]).
This study is the first to characterise malnourished hospitalised older adults in
Singapore. It is also one of the very few studies to (a) evaluate the association of
admission malnutrition with clinical outcomes in a multivariate model; (b) determine
the change in their nutritional status during admission; and (c) evaluate the validity of
nutritional screening and assessment tools amongst hospitalised older adults in an
Asian population. Results clearly highlight that admission malnutrition and
deterioration in nutritional status are prevalent and are associated with adverse clinical
outcomes in hospitalised older adults. With older adults being vulnerable to risks and
consequences of malnutrition, it is important that they are systematically screened so
timely and appropriate intervention can be provided. The findings highlighted in this
thesis provide an evidence base for, and confirm the validity of the current nutrition
screening and assessment tools used among hospitalised older adults in Singapore. As
the older adults may have developed malnutrition prior to hospital admission, or
experienced clinically significant weight loss of >1% per week of hospitalisation,
screening of the elderly should be initiated in the community and continuous
nutritional monitoring should extend beyond hospitalisation.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
vi
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
vii
Table of Contents
Keywords.........................................................................................................................i Abstract...........................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................ix List of Figures ...............................................................................................................xii List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................xiii Publications by the candidate ........................................................................................xv Statement of Original Authorship ................................................................................xvii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................xviii Background.....................................................................................................................1 1 Literature Review ................................................................................................5
1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................5 1.2 Definitions of key concepts..................................................................................6 1.3 Literature search strategy ................................................................................... 11 1.4 Risk factors for malnutrition .............................................................................. 12 1.5 Prevalence of malnutrition ................................................................................. 16 1.6 Consequences of malnutrition ............................................................................ 32 1.7 Nutrition screening ............................................................................................ 43 1.8 Nutrition assessment .......................................................................................... 59 1.9 Summary of research gaps ................................................................................. 84 1.10 Research aims and questions.............................................................................. 88
2 Methods.............................................................................................................90 2.1 Sample type and size.......................................................................................... 90 2.2 Measurements.................................................................................................... 91 2.3 Statistical Analysis........................................................................................... 114
3 Recruitment and participants’ characteristics by age ........................................122 3.1 Introduction and aims ...................................................................................... 122 3.2 Recruitment ..................................................................................................... 122 3.3 Participants’ (n= 281) characteristics ............................................................... 127 3.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 137 3.5 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 139
4 Prevalence of malnutrition and comparison of participants’ characteristics by nutritional status..........................................................................................................140
7 Changes in anthropometric measurements and nutritional status during hospitalisation, and impact on clinical outcomes..........................................................216
8 Study significance, strengths, limitations and recommendations.......................252 8.1 Overview of study significance and outcomes.................................................. 252 8.2 Summary of key findings................................................................................. 254 8.3 Strengths and contributions to new knowledge................................................. 258 8.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 267 8.5 Recommendations............................................................................................ 274 8.6 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 285
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
ix
List of Tables Table 1-1: Definitions of malnutrition from key organisations································· 7 Table 1-2: Risk factors for malnutrition among older adults····································13 Table 1-3: Malnutrition risks associated with hospitalisation···································14 Table 1-4: List of common malnutrition assessment methods used in studies and their
associated range of malnutrition prevalence····················································18 Table 1-5: Comparison of malnutrition (defined by SGA) prevalence between
younger and older hospitalised adults ·····························································19 Table 1-6: Prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults (>60 years) from
acute care ·····································································································23 Table 1-7: Prevalence of malnutrition in older adults (>60 years) in sub-acute,
community and long term care settings···························································24 Table 1-8: Studies which examined changes in nutritional status during hospitalisation
····················································································································31 Table 1-9: Common adverse clinical consequences of malnutrition ·························32 Table 1-10: Longitudinal studies of the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in
hospitalised elderly without adjustment for covariates·····································34 Table 1-11: Longitudinal studies of the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in
hospitalised elderly, adjusting for covariates···················································36 Table 1-12: Benefits of nutrition screening ····························································44 Table 1-13: Common limitations of available nutrition screening tools····················47 Table 1-14: Characteristics of an effective nutrition screening tool··························48 Table 1-15: Comparison of characteristics of selected nutrition screening tools········49 Table 1-16: List of parameters and indices used in nutrition assessment ··················60 Table 1-17: Predictive equations for height using knee height ·································65 Table 1-18: Equations for derivative arm indicators················································70 Table 1-19: Comparison of characteristics between Subjective Global Assessment
(SGA) and MiniNutritional Assessment (MNA) ·············································80 Table 1-20: Comparisons on the applications of commonly used nutrition parameters
in clinical practice·························································································83 Table 2-1: Variables and measures collected at admission/baseline – Phase 1 ··········96 Table 2-2: Classification of BMI based on WHO international classification ···········99 Table 2-3: Derived arm anthropometric measures and associated equations ···········101 Table 2-4: Modified Barthel Index·······································································106 Table 2-5: Classification of dependency levels used by the Modified Barthel Index106 Table 2-6: Charlson Comorbidity Index·······························································107 Table 2-7: Modified Severity of Illness Index (SII)···············································108 Table 2-8: Variables and measures collected upon discharge and post discharge –
Phase 2·······································································································112 Table 2-9: List and types of variables for application in statistical analysis ············120 Table 3-1: Reasons for non-eligibility across the three study wards (n=258) ··········125 Table 3-2: Comparison between all GRM patients, non-eligible patients from the three
study wards and study participants during the study period (November 2006 to July 2007)···································································································125
Table 3-3: Comparison between non-respondents and study participants ···············126 Table 3-4: Sociodemographic characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60
years) and according to age groups·······························································130
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
x
Table 3-5: Nutritional characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups···············································································131
Table 3-6: Appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups·············································133
Table 3-7: Clinical characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups···············································································134
Table 3-8: Clinical outcomes of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups···············································································136
Table 4-1 : Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition prevalence between those with and without weight measurements on admission··············144
Table 4-2: Classification and agreement of the four different malnutrition assessment methods applied to hospitalised older adults (>60 years) ·······························145
Table 4-3: Sociodemographic characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission·········································148
Table 4-4: Appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission ················150
Table 4-5: Clinical characteristics of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission·····································································152
Table 4-6: Summary of patient characteristics significantly associated with malnutrition on admission as assessed by four different malnutrition assessment methods······································································································154
Table 5-1: Clinical outcomes of study participants (n=281) aged >60 years according to nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods······································································································169
Table 5-2: Summary of univariate relationships between clinical outcomes and nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods (expressed in odds ratio, 95% confidence interval). ·························170
Table 5-3: Summary of multivariate relationships between clinical outcomes and nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods (expressed in odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) ··························172
Table 5-4: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without admission weight measurements ··································································174
Table 5-5: Summary of the AUC from ROC curve analysis for each malnutrition assessment method against the clinical outcomes··········································176
Table 6-1: Classification of malnutrition risk in older adults >60 years by the various nutrition screening tools completed by dietetic technician ·····························197
Table 6-2: Validation of nutrition screening tools against SGA determined nutritional status··········································································································200
Table 6-3: TTSH NST-defined malnutrition risk as assessed by the dietetic technician and clinical outcomes··················································································206
Table 7-1: Anthropometric measurements and nutritional status of older adults (>60 years) on admission to and upon discharge from an acute care hospital [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)]·····································································221
Table 7-2: Frequency and magnitude of decline in anthropometric measurements and nutritional status of older adults (>60 years) with admission and discharge assessment [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)] ······································222
Table 7-3: Association of appetite, chewing, swallowing, clinical and nutritional characteristics of older adults (>60 years) with weight loss >1% per week during acute hospitalisation [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)] ························226
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
xi
Table 7-4: Weight loss of >1% per week of hospitalisation among older adults (>60 years) and the associated clinical outcomes ··················································228
Table 7-5: Decline in CAMA during hospitalisation among older adults (>60 years) and the associated clinical outcomes ····························································229
Table 7-6: Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition prevalence between those with and without weight measurements at discharge ···············231
Table 7-7: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without discharge weight measurements ···································································232
Table 7-8: Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition prevalence between those with and without weight change data······································235
Table 7-9: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without weight change data······················································································236
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
xii
List of Figures Figure 1-1: Relationships between the key concepts in the research study ............... 10 Figure 4-1: Prevalence of malnutrition among older adults (>60 years) on admission
to specialist geriatric wards using different malnutrition assessment methods .143 Figure 6-1: ROC curves of nutrition screening tools against SGA (n=235) .............201 Figure 6-2: ROC curve of MNA-SF against SGA (n=235)......................................202 Figure 6-3: ROC curve of TTSH NST (completed by the dietetic technician) against
SGA for all participants aged >60 years (n=281) ............................................203 Figure 6-4: ROC curve of TTSH NST (completed by the dietetic technician) against
SGA for participants aged >85 years (n=95) ...................................................204 Figure 7-1: Flowchart of participants with and without weight measurement on
admission and discharge .................................................................................234 Figure 7-2: Flowchart of malnourished participants (defined by SGA) on admission
and the corresponding malnutrition risk routinely screened by nursing staff and the subsequent referral to dietitian ..................................................................238
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
xiii
List of Abbreviations ALB
ALOS
AMT
ASPEN
AUC
BAPEN
BMI
CAMA
CC
CCI
CI
DAA
ESPEN
GRM
IBW
LOS
MAC
MAMA
MAMC
MBI
MNA
MNA-SF
MST
Serum albumin
Average length of stay
Abbreviated Mental Test
American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Area under the curve
British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Body mass index
Corrected arm muscle area
Calf circumference
Charlson Comorbidity Index
Confidence interval
Dietitians Association of Australia
European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Geriatric Medicine
Ideal body weight
Length of stay
Mid-arm circumference
Mid-arm muscle area
Mid-arm muscle circumference
Modified Barthel Index
Mini Nutritional Assessment
Mini Nutritional Assessment- Short Form
Malnutrition Screening Tool
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
Lansey, 1993122; US 47 86+6 ALB, TLC + <90% IBW or any 2 (MAC, TSF, MAMC, SSF, BMI) <5th centile
36
Constans et al, 1992123; France 324 >70 Mod: MAC <10th centile or ALB <3.5g/dL; Severe: both
62(women) 46(men)
Volkert et al, 1992110; Germany 300 >75 Clinical judgement by physicians (physical)
22
Abbreviations: ALB: serum albumin; BMI: body mass index; BW: body weight; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; MAC: mid-arm circumference; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MN: malnourished; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; mod: moderate; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; TLC: total lymphocyte count; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; wt/ht: weight for height ratio ^ Age range is presented when mean age+SD was not reported
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
24
Table 1-7: Prevalence of malnutrition in older adults (>60 years) in sub-acute, community and long term care settings
Reference Sample (n)
Age^ (years)
Malnutrition Assessment method Prevalence (%)
Sub-acute care /Rehabilitation Mean+SD
Brantervik et al, 200539 Sweden
294 83+8(F) 78+10(M)
At risk; BMI <22kg/m2, and/or weight loss>5% in 6 months
55
Neumann et al,200582 Australia
133 >65 MNA <24 BMI<22kg/m2 CAMA <21.6cm2(men); <21.4cm2(women)
6 17 20
Shum et al, 200575 Hong Kong
120 80+7 BMI< 18.5kg/m2 and ALB <35g/L 17
Thomas et al, 200283 US
837 76+13 ALB <35g/L MNA<17 BMI<19kg/m2
53 29 18
Community
Hsieh et al, 2010124; Taiwan 360 >65 MNA<17 5
Tsai et al, 2009125; Taiwan 301 >65 MNA<24 17
De Marchi et al, 200849; Brazil 471 >60 MNA<24 21
Kruizenga et al, 200365; Netherlands
533 59+20 MN: involuntary weight loss >10% in 6/12; At risk: weight loss 5-10%
6
Visvanathan et al, 2003126; Australia
250 67-99 MNA<17 5
Stookey et al, 200073; China 3800 >60 BMI < 18.5kg/m2 16
Edington et al, 199672; UK 301 >65 as per McWhirter et al, 1994 9
Posner et al, 199419; US 1156 >70 BMI <22kg/m2 16
de Groot et al, 1991127; Europe 2332 NR BMI <20kg/m2 15
Long term care
Chan et al, 201078; Singapore 154 77+12 MNA<17 BMI<18.5kg/m2
39 52
Banks et al, 200717; Australia 458 79+12 SGA: rating B +C 49
Wikby et al, 2006102; Sweden 127 >65 At least 2 (1 biochem, 1 anthro) : Wt/ht (Ratio <80%) MAC, TSF (M<6, F<12), MAMC (M <23 for <79yrs,<21 for >79 yrs; F<19 for <79 yrs, <18 for >79 yrs) ALB (<36), Prealbumin (<0.23)
32
Crogan & Pasvogel, 2003128; US 311 >65 BMI <22kg/m2 39
Christensson et al, 2002129; Sweden 261 >65 SGA: rating B +C MNA<24
53 79
Sacks et al, 200095; US 53 >65 SGA: rating B +C 70
Saletti et al, 2000130; Sweden 166 84+8 MNA<17 71
Compan et al, 199920; France 423 83+10 MNA<17 25
Keller, 1993106; Canada 200 >65 Wt/ht, TSF, subscapular skinfold, MAC,MAMC,MAMA <25th centile; BMI <20; weight loss >10% in 6 months
46
Larsson et al, 1990101; Sweden 501 >65 3 or more criteria: Wt index <80%, TSF, MAMC, Prealbumin, ALB <36, skin test
29
Abbreviations: ALB: serum albumin; BMI: body mass index; BW: body weight; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; MAC: mid-arm circumference; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MAMA: mid-arm muscle area; MN: malnourished; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; MNA-SF: Min-Nutritional Assessment-Short Form; mod: moderate; NR: not reported; NRI: Nutrition Risk Index; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; TLC: total lymphocyte count; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; wt/ht: weight for height ratio ^ Age range is presented when mean age+SD was not reported
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
25
1.5.4 Under-diagnosed hospital malnutrition
Malnutrition prevalence has been widely reported as shown in sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.3.
However, it is frequently under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated in
hospitalised patients59, 87, 90, 105, 131 even until recent years132, 133.
A recent study of 100 elderly patients (mean age 81.9+6.3 years) from a large
Australian tertiary hospital, showed that 30% were malnourished and 61% were at
risk of malnutrition (defined by MNA)132. More than 95% of the patients presenting
with weight loss or loss of appetite were either at risk of malnutrition or
malnourished. Yet medical and nursing professionals identified only 19% with weight
loss and 53% with loss of appetite; and only 7% and 9% were referred to a dietitian
respectively132. Gout et al133 also reported poor recognition of malnutrition in another
large tertiary hospital among 275 adult patients (mean age 59.5+19.9 years) where
23% were found to be malnourished (defined by SGA)133. A dietitian was involved in
45% malnourished cases, and 29% were correctly documented as malnourished in the
medical notes133.
In the earlier Singapore study conducted at TTSH60, malnutrition was also similarly
under-diagnosed and under-treated with only 17 (16%) of the 105 malnourished
patients being referred to a dietitian for nutrition interventions by the treating
physician, and only one of these patients having the diagnosis of malnutrition
documented.
However, there was a trend towards an improvement of hospital malnutrition
management in the recent years, particularly in the UK105, 134. In a recent large cross-
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
26
sectional study by O’Flynn et al (2005)135 in a UK hospital (n=2283, >16 years),
referral to a dietitian for nutritional support was increased from 57% to 71% over a 5
year period after implementation of nutrition care strategies such as implementation
of a nutrition screening tool and improved catering services and nutrition education
provision. Although these recent dietitian referral rates in UK showed more than a 10-
fold increase compared to that reported by McWhirter and Pennington in 199459 (5%),
malnutrition is still not adequately recognised and treated in hospitalised patients50, 59,
87, 90, 105, 115.
There are several reasons that might explain the sub-optimal level of malnutrition
recognition evident across different countries. Firstly, there may be poor systems of
nutritional measurements and documentation. Often limited nutritional information
was available for assessment of hospitalised patients, where more than three-quarters
of patients could not have their nutrition status assessed due to inadequate data
(anthropometry or biochemical) available from routine assessment136. Nutritional
information was also often not documented in up to half of the malnourished
patients50, 59, 132, and less than one-third of the malnourished patients were diagnosed
as malnourished either on admission or discharge59, 66, 136.
Secondly, there might have been a lack of good practice guidelines for recognising
and initiating nutrition therapy as the literature reveals that more than two-thirds of
malnourished patients did not receive any form of nutrition support therapy136, or
were not routinely referred to dietitians 59, 64, 132. This might be related to the limited
training and knowledge of doctors and nurses, and tendency to mainly focus on the
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
27
patients presenting medical conditions and give less credence to other important
components of care such as nutritional status86, 94, 132,
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
28
1.5.5 Change in nutritional status during hospitali sation
With the poor recognition and treatment of malnutrition upon hospital admission,
further nutritional depletion could occur and lead to worsened nutritional status during
hospitalisation. Patients who are well-nourished or at risk of malnutrition may
experience a decline in nutritional status and develop malnutrition due to the risks
associated with hospitalisation mentioned earlier in section 1.2 (Table 1-3).
Documentation and monitoring of nutritional status during hospitalisation have not
been as widely reported as the prevalence of admission malnutrition. From the review
in this thesis, the change in nutritional status has been reported in only nine studies in
Europe and US summarised in Table 1-8. Among them, only five were conducted in
older adults. In general, these studies (Table 1-8) showed that 16-83% of patients
declined in their nutritional status during hospitalisation, regardless of their admission
nutrition status and the duration of hospital stay (range from 12 days to 26 weeks).
The only exception was the study in France (n=495, age 55-103 years) that showed
49% of malnourished patients in acute and sub-acute care had improved nutritional
status through increased MNA score20. Those who stayed longer had a greater
improvement in the MNA score and this could be explained by questions in MNA
which relate to acute disease and treatments that tend to improve with time20.
No standard nutrition parameters were used in monitoring the change in nutritional
status during hospital admission in these studies (Table 1-8), just as there was a lack
of a standard malnutrition assessment method. Anthropometric measurements (weight
and arm measurements) appeared to be the most commonly adopted approach to
monitor patients’ nutritional status during admission. Half these studies used weight
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
29
measures and weight loss as an indication of deterioration in nutritional status59, 69, 88,
137 and showed mean percentage weight loss (of baseline admission weight) was 1.8-
5.4% over an average LOS of two weeks. The different nutrition parameters used in
monitoring the nutritional status in these studies could have contributed to the
inconsistency observed in detecting decline in nutritional status during hospitalisation.
Appropriately identifying patients who have deteriorated nutritional status is as
important as the identification of patients who are malnourished or at risk of
malnutrition on admission. Braunschweig et al (2000)88 reported that among 404
hospitalised adults (mean age 54+1 years), well-nourished patients on admission were
as likely or even more likely to experience decline in nutritional status (38%) as those
who were moderately malnourished (20%) or severely malnourished (33%). This
study showed decline in nutritional status was associated with poorer clinical
outcomes such as higher hospital costs and higher risks of complications. The
predictive ability of declined nutritional status on clinical outcomes in hospitalised
adults has not been as widely studied as the predictive ability of admission
malnutrition.
Overall, there was no standardised approach identified in the literature to define and
assess malnutrition. The prevalence of malnutrition was higher in older than younger
hospitalised adults. The wide variations in the malnutrition prevalence reported could
be attributed to the differences in care settings, malnutrition assessment methods, and
patient characteristics between studies. Despite the reported high prevalence of
hospital malnutrition, it remained under-recognised, under-diagnosed, and under-
treated. The poor recognition and treatment of malnutrition during hospital admission
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
30
could lead to further nutritional decline. The monitoring of nutritional status during
hospitalisation has not been studied as extensively and there was also a lack of a
standard assessment approach to monitor its change.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
31
Table 1-8: Studies which examined changes in nutritional status during hospitalisation
Author/Year/ Citation/Country
Sample (N)*
Population/Setting
Age^ Mean+SD
(years)
Admission# malnutrition
(%)
Assessment method of
change
Change in nutrition status during admission Duration of follow-up from admission to
discharge (ALOS) Braunschiweig et al, 200088; US
404
Adults Hospital
54+1 54 (SGA)
SGA and weight loss
59% malnourished at discharge; 31% decline (in well-nourished:38%; moderately
malnourished:20%; severely malnourished: 33%)
17 days
Corish et al, 2000137; UK
594 (202)
Adults Hospital
16-64 11+
Weight loss Weight loss: 43% of malnourished; 66% of normal weight
Weight loss 50% weight loss <5%; 25% weight loss 5-10%; 8% weight loss 10-15%
Median LOS 14 days (Range 3-115 days)
Gariballa et al, 199869; UK
201 (96)
Elderly Hospital
78+9 31 (BMI<20kg/m2)
Weight loss
64% lost weight; Mean weight loss:1.8% (women);2.4% (men)
At 2 weeks of admission
Antonelli Incalzi et al, 1996139; Italy
302
Elderly Hospital
79+6 16(men) 28(women)
(BMI<22kg/m2)
MAMC 64% reduced MAMC ALOS not reported
McWhirter & Pennington, 199459; UK
500 (112)
Adults Hospital
>16 40+ Weight loss Weight loss: 75% of malnourished; 39% of well-nourished; mean weight loss: 5.4%
ALOS not reported
Constans et al, 1992123; France
324 (53)
Elderly Hospital
>70 46(men) 62(women)
MAC;ALB Decline in MAC and ALB in all 53 patients At 15th day of admission
Larsson et al, 1990101; Sweden
501
Elderly Long-term
care
>65 29 As per criteria for
malnutrition
26% (n=182) well-nourished developed malnutrition after 2 weeks
At 8 weeks and 26 weeks
Abbreviations: ALB: serum albumin; ALOS: average length of stay; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MAC: mid-arm circumference; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; *Numbers in brackets indicate the sample assessed at follow-up/discharge;.^ Age range is presented when mean age was not reported in the studies. #Refer to Table 1-6 for malnutrition assessment methods in these studies; ^ Defined by BMI<20kg/m2 +weight loss>5% 3-months preceding admission; + Defined by BMI <20kg/m2 + TSF/MAMC <15thcentile, weight loss >10% in 6-months
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
32
1.6 Consequences of malnutrition
It is well established that malnourished patients have a higher risk of developing
adverse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare costs as reported in the review by
Stratton et al (2003)7. Some of the more common adverse clinical consequences of
malnutrition are in Table 1-9. Malnutrition is an important predictor of mortality and
morbidity in hospitalised patients 38, 140. Among hospitalised older adults, malnutrition
remained a significant predictor for adverse clinical outcomes even when illness
severity, comorbidities or functional dependence on admission were controlled for 94.
The strong association between poor nutritional status and poor clinical outcomes was
evident regardless of age 140, care setting 82, 105, 126, clinical discipline61, 69, 89, 141, 142 and
country87, 89, 105, 143. However the impact of hospital malnutrition on clinical outcomes
was more severe among the elderly hospitalised patients 91, 103.
Table 1-9: Common adverse clinical consequences of malnutrition 7
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
33
Table 1-10 lists the 15 longitudinal studies (n=83 to n=2192) which have reported the
impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes i.e. mortality, LOS, readmission,
functional status, and discharge to higher level care, among hospitalised older adults
without adjustment for potential confounders. These studies were mainly conducted in
the US and Europe with only one Asian study. Follow-up periods ranged from the
mean hospital LOS of nine days to three years post-discharge.
In addition, Table 1-11 lists the seven longitudinal studies (n=92 to n=1145) which
reported the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes (i.e. mortality, LOS,
functional status, readmission, and discharge to higher level care), among hospitalised
older adults with adjustment for the established covariates (i.e. age, gender, functional
status, cognition, and comorbidities). All these studies were conducted in the US and
Europe. Follow-up periods ranged from the mean hospital LOS of 15 days to seven
years post-discharge.
The commonly reported clinical outcomes amongst hospitalised older adults are
discussed in sections 1.6.1 to 1.6.6 with reference to the studies summarised in Tables
1-10 and 1-11.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
34
Table 1-10: Longitudinal studies of the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in hospitalised elderly without adjustment for covariates
Author/Year/Citation
Country Follow-up period
Setting (N) Mean+SD Age^ (years)
Malnutrition assessment method
Outcomes/Effect size
Feldblum et al, 2009116
Israel 3 months Hospital (n=204)
>65 MNA <24 LOS: 7.1 vs 5.0 days; Hospital readmission days at 3-month: 2.8 vs 1.4 days
Lang et al, 2006111
France mean LOS 20 days
Hospital (n=908)
84+6 MNA-SF<12 LOS >30 days: OR 2.5, 95% CI (1.7-19.6)
Pirlich et al, 2006119
Germany NR Hospital (n=2192)
62+17
SGA rating: B+C LOS: difference 4.6 days (42% increase)
Kagansky et al, 200537
Israel 2.7 years Hospital (n=414)
>75 MNA<17 LOS: 60 vs 28 days; Hospital mortality:39% vs 13%
Neumann et al, 200582
Australia 90 days Rehabilitation (n=133)
>65 MNA <24 CAMA <21.6 (men); <21.4 (women) BMI <22kg/m2
#LOS: 19 vs 14 days; Discharge to higher level care: OR 2.3, 95% CI (1.1-4.8); Functional status at 90 days: MBI 85+19 vs 96+7
Shum et al, 200575
Hong Kong
mean LOS 14 days
Hospital (n=120)
80+7 BMI<18.5kg/m2 ALB<35g/L
Hospital mortality: 25% vs 4%
Kyle et al, 200496
Germany mean LOS 10 days
Medical Hospital (n=1273)
>60 NRI<98 ALB<35g/L
LOS >11days: OR 2.2(mod); OR 3.5 (severe)
Persson et al, 2002113
Sweden 3 years Hospital (n=83)
83+7 SGA rating: B+C MNA<24
Mortality 1 year: 40% vs 20%; 3 year: 80% vs 50%
Abbreviations: ALB: serum albumin; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; IBW: ideal body weight; LOS: length of stay; MAC: mid-arm circumference; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MBI: Modified Barthel Index; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; MNA-SF: Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form; NR: not reported; NRI: Nutrition Risk Index; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; TLC: total lymphocyte count; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; ^ Age range is presented when mean age was not reported in the studies. # Outcomes reported based on malnutrition assessment method MNA<24; functional status at 90 days was the only outcome adjusted for admission functional status
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
35
Table 1-10: Longitudinal studies of the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in hospitalised elderly without adjustment for covariates (continued)
Author/Year/Citation
Country Follow-up period
Setting (N)
Mean+SD Age^ (years)
Malnutrition assessment method
Outcomes/Effect size
Van Nes et al, 2001120
Switzerland mean LOS 36 days
Hospital (n=1145)
84+7 MNA<17 Mortality inhospital:11.3% vs 3.7%
LOS: 42 vs 30.5 days Friedmann et al, 1997152
US 3 months Medical/ surgical Hospital (n=92)
>65 ALB<35g/L; Weight loss >10% in 6 months
Higher probability of readmission at 3-month: effect size not reported
Cederholm et al, 199599
Sweden 9 months Hospital (n=205)
75+1 Any 3: Weight<80% IBW; TSF/MAMC<10th percentile; ALB<36g/L; delayed hypersensitivity<9mm
Mortality 9-month: 41% vs 18%
Sullivan et al, 1995155
US 1 year Hospital (n=350)
58-102 SGA rating: B+C Mortality 1 year: 20%
Volkert et al, 1992156
Germany 18 months Hospital (n=300)
>75 Clinical judgement by physician examination (details not reported)
Mortality 3-month: 40% vs 15% Mortality 18 month: 72% vs 44%
Larsson et al, 1990101
Sweden mean LOS 26 weeks
Hospital (n=501)
>65 Any 3: Weight<80% IBW; TSF/MAMC<10th percentile; ALB<36g/L; delayed hypersensitivity<9mm
Abbreviations: ALB: serum albumin; BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; IBW: ideal body weight; LOS: length of stay; MAC: mid-arm circumference; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; MNA-SF: Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form; NR: not reported; NRI: Nutrition Risk Index; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; TLC: total lymphocyte count; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; ^ Age range is presented when mean age was not reported in the studies.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
36
Table 1-11: Longitudinal studies of the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in hospitalised elderly, adjusting for covariates
Author/Year/Citation
Country Follow-up period
Setting (N)
Mean+SD Age^ (years)
Malnutrition assessment method
Outcomes/Effect Size Covariates
Faxen-Irving et al, 200574
Sweden 7 year Hospital (n=231)
80+7 BMI<23kg/m2 Mortality 7 year: OR 3.0, 95% CI (1.3-6.7)
82+7 Not defined LOS: no effect; Mortality 6-month: OR 3.7, 95% CI (2.3-6.1); Discharge higher care: no effect
ADL, function disability, polypharmacy, pressure sores, cognitive impairment, low pension
Covinsky et al, 199994
US 1 year Hospital (n=369)
>70 SGA rating: B+C
#Mortality, at 3-month: OR 3.3, 95% CI (1.5-7.0); 1 year: OR 2.8, 95% CI (1.5-5.5); ADL at 3-month: OR 2.8, 95% CI (1.1-7.5); Discharge to nursing home at 1 year: OR 3.2, 95% CI (1.1-9.9)
Age, race, gender, living situation, APACHE, Charlson score, cancer, admission ADL, CHF, COPD or dementia
Muhlethaler et al, 199579
Switzerland 4.5 years Hospital (n=219)
>65 CAMA<5th percentile Weight <80% ALB<30g/L
Mortality 4.5 year: OR 1.8, 95% CI (1.3-2.6)
Physical function, cognitive function, renal function, living alone
>85 ALB<30g/L Mortality during admission Age, diagnosis
Abbreviations: ADL: activities of daily living; ALB: serum albumin; APACHE: acute physiology and chronic health evaluation; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; CHF: congestive heart failure; CI: confidence interval; COPD; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; LOS: length of stay; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment. ^ Age range is presented when mean age was not reported in the studies. # Outcomes significant only in the severely malnourished group (SGA rating C)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
37
1.6.1 Mortality
Mortality is an important clinical and health status outcome. Poor nutritional status,
regardless of the malnutrition assessment method, has been shown in various patient
groups such as surgical, medical, stroke and geriatric patients, and countries to be
significantly associated with increased mortality rates at different follow-up periods
ranging from in-hospital to up to seven years (Tables 1-10 and 1-11)61, 62, 69, 74, 94, 141.
Mortality is the most studied clinical outcome among hospitalised older adults in
relation to their nutritional status (Tables 1-10 and 1-11). Only half of these studies
shown in Tables 1-10 and 1-11 had mortality followed-up beyond hospitalisation.
After adjusting for age, mortality rates were up to six times higher among
malnourished than well-nourished older patients75. Malnourished older patients had
up to three times higher mortality risk at 3-months94 and at up to seven years74,
compared to the well-nourished older patients. Only six of these studies adjusted for
covariates62, 74, 79, 94, 157, 158 (Table 1-11), and malnutrition remained predictive of
mortality even after adjustments for illness severity, comorbidity and functional
status94. Serum albumin, BMI and weight loss were identified to be independent
predictors of mortality in many of these studies62, 69, 74, 155, 159.
The association between malnutrition in the hospitalised elderly and mortality has not
been as well-documented in the literature for Asian countries as it has for the US62, 94,
160 and Europe74, 99, 113, 120, 156, 157. There was only one recent study identified with 120
elderly hospitalised patients aged > 60 years (80.3+7.4 years) in a Hong Kong
rehabilitation hospital which showed that malnourished elderly patients had a six
times increased risk of death in hospital75, however no adjustment for covariates was
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
38
made. To date, there does not appear to be any data on mortality rates and
malnourished geriatric patients in an acute hospital setting in Singapore.
1.6.2 Length of stay (LOS)
Length of stay (LOS) is both a service and patient outcome which is easily collected.
Patients admitted with multiple medical issues are more likely to require longer
hospital stay. However differences in healthcare systems between countries may also
influence length of hospital stay independent of the clinical status of patients. For
example, LOS also varies in short term influenced by bed availability. From the
studies reviewed (Table 1-10), hospital LOS is the second most common clinical
outcome studied among hospitalised older adults in relation to their nutritional status
on admission. These studies from the US136, Europe96, 111, 119, 120 and Australia82
consistently reported longer LOS among those who were malnourished. The LOS for
older patients who were malnourished could be up to 43% longer than for those who
were well-nourished119. Malnourished older patients were also shown to experience
up to two and a half times increased risk of longer hospital stay111. The severity of
malnutrition also had an influence on the extent of prolonged hospital stay. For those
who were severely malnourished, up to three times increased risk of longer stay were
reported96. However, most of these studies did not adjust for covariates. Only one
study (n=353, mean age 82 years) adjusted for factors such as functional status,
cognitive impairment and polypharmacy, but no relationship between nutritional
status and LOS was detected158. This suggests that the association found between
malnutrition and LOS in the other studies could potentially be confounded by a range
of other factors.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
39
1.6.3 Discharge to higher level care
Discharge destinations indirectly reflect the functional status of patients. Only three
studies explained the relationship between nutritional status and discharge to higher
level care among hospitalised older adults82, 94, 158. Neumann et al82 in their study of
133 Australian older patients (>65 years) in rehabilitation showed that malnourished
patients at admission were at higher risk (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.8) of admission to
higher level of care upon discharge. Even after adjustment for confounding factors,
Covinsky et al94 showed that among 369 hospitalised elderly (>70 years) in US, those
who were malnourished at admission were more likely (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-9.9) to
spend time in a nursing home within 1 year after discharge. However, the relationship
between malnutrition and discharge destination did not persist after adjustment for
covariates in a Spanish study conducted with 353 hospitalised elderly (mean age 82
years) 158.
1.6.4 Infections
Development of infections or sepsis during hospitalisation is a serious clinical
outcome. Studies have shown that malnourished adult patients are at up to two and a
half times higher risk of developing infections compared to well-nourished patients61,
89. Likewise among older adults, malnutrition was also reported to be associated with
development of sepsis in hospitalised patients in Europe81, 99, and an independent
predictor for development of in-hospital complications among more than 1000
geriatric rehabilitation patients in the US142, 143, 160, 161. However no standard
assessment methods of infections or complications were reported in these studies.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
40
1.6.5 Hospital readmission rates
Hospital readmission was not as frequently studied as a healthcare utilisation outcome
among hospitalised older adults. Only three prospective studies116, 151, 152 were
identified and they consistently demonstrated poor nutritional status was predictive of
hospital readmission. Friedmann et al (1997)152 studied 92 geriatric patients (age
range: 65-92 years) in the US and showed that poor nutritional status was predictive
of non-elective hospital readmission within 3-months of discharge. Similarly,
Feldblum et al (2009)116 also reported that patients with MNA score <24 were at
higher risk of hospital readmissions at 3-months and longer readmission hospital stay
in their study of 204 elderly patients (>65 years) from an Israel hospital. Even after
adjustment for covariates among 110 elderly patients (>65 years) from a rehabilitation
hospital in the US, Sullivan (1992)151 was still able to demonstrate that malnutrition
(discharge serum albumin level not defined) was predictive of non-elective
readmissions at 3-months post discharge.
1.6.6 Functional status
Functional status is an important patient outcome which is usually defined by
measures of independence in activities of daily living (ADL). Common measures of
ADL include the Barthel Index162 and the Katz Index163 or self-report based on each
ADL function. Poor functional status on admission has been associated with
admission malnutrition in cross-sectional studies43, 44, 136, 164. However it is unclear if
poor functional status was a risk or consequence of malnutrition in these studies.
When protein and energy stores are depleted during an acute illness leading to
malnutrition, it decreases muscle strength and exacerbates the patient’s weakness,
contributing to a decline in the physical activities and functional status. This can
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
41
predispose the development of frailty and thus increase the risk of falls165. On the
other hand, when functional capacity decreases, it limits the physical ability to prepare
and consume adequate nutrition, and could increase the risk of poor nutrition41, 44.
Some nutrition assessment tools such as the MNA and SGA include measures of
functional status so it is possible that the two may be related44. Therefore to
demonstrate the predictive association of malnutrition with functional outcomes, the
study design must be a prospective follow-up one with the admission functional status
included as a covariate.
Only two prospective studies82, 94 demonstrated the predictive ability of malnutrition
on functional status among hospitalised elderly. Neumann et al (2005)82 showed in
their study amongst 133 elderly patients in rehabilitation (>65 years) that
malnourished patients (MNA score <24) on admission had significantly poorer
functional status (using Modified Barthel Index, mean+SD: 85+19 vs 96+7, p<0.05)
at 90 days, with adjustment for admission functional status. When Covinsky et al
(1999)94 adjusted for nine covariates in their study of 369 elderly patients (>70 years)
in the US, they also showed that malnutrition (by SGA) was predictive (OR 2.8, 95%
CI 1.5-5.5) of poor functional status (dependent in >1 self-reported ADL function) at
3-months post discharge.
Despite the widely reported associations between nutritional status and clinical
outcomes reviewed in this section, there is limited documentation on the impact of
malnutrition in the Singapore hospitalised patients60. In the Singapore study by Raja
et al60 (mean age 56 years), inpatient mortality was 15.5% and 1.3%, readmission rate
was 7.6% and 2.6%, and LOS was 7.9 days and 3.8 days, amongst the malnourished
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
42
and non-malnourished patients respectively (p<0.05, for all comparisons)60, after
adjustment for age and admission clinical disciplines. However, it did not show if
statistical differences between the clinical outcomes of the malnourished and non-
malnourished patients persisted in only the elderly patients. It is also not known if the
consequences of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults are more severe. Data on the
impact of malnutrition in hospital geriatric patients from Singapore are greatly
lacking.
Overall, malnutrition in older patients has been shown to be associated with adverse
clinical outcomes such as mortality, longer LOS, discharge to higher level care,
infections, hospital readmissions, and poorer functional status. Generally these
relationships have been less commonly studied in Asian elderly populations. Many of
these association studies did not adjust for confounding factors, or only selective
confounders were included. As a result, most of the evidence was not strong enough
to support the independent associations between malnutrition and poor clinical
outcomes.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
43
1.7 Nutrition screening
With the high prevalence of malnutrition and the many adverse outcomes associated
with malnutrition, it could be argued for all patients to receive a detailed and
comprehensive nutrition assessment upon hospital admission by dietitians and have
their nutritional status monitored during admission (Figure 1-1). However this may
not be practical and cost-effective in clinical practice as it is time-consuming perform
a full nutrition assessment. Therefore nutrition screening is an important first step in
the early identification of malnutrition and initiates the whole nutrition care process
before comprehensive nutrition assessment is performed. It can potentially reduce the
high prevalence of undiagnosed and untreated malnutrition upon hospital admission.
The various nutritional screening methods are reviewed in this section and the
nutritional assessment approaches are discussed in the next section 1.8.
1.7.1 Importance and benefits of nutrition screenin g
Nutrition screening is a critical antecedent step in the Nutrition Care Process15. Its
purpose is to identify malnourished individuals or those at nutritional risk who would
benefit from more detailed nutrition assessment and individualised nutrition care.
Many national, international and specialist organisations such as British Dietetics
Association (BDA), European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN),
British Association of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN), and Dietitians
Association of Australia (DAA) have recommended routine screening in various care
settings to identify patients at risk of malnutrition for further evaluation and treatment
112, 131, 166-168. A recent Cochrane review showed that malnourished older adults
benefited most from energy and protein supplementations169; hence it is crucial that
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
44
they are identified early for initiation of appropriate nutrition intervention. The
associated benefits of nutrition screening are shown in Table 1-12.
In Singapore, nutritional screening for all patients admitted to the hospitals is required
for accreditation by the Joint Commission International. In TTSH, a nutrition policy
for screening all patients within 24 hours of admission by the nursing staff using the
TTSH Nutrition Screening Tool (TTSH NST, Appendix Table A-4) has been
implemented since 2002.
Table 1-12: Benefits of nutrition screening 131, 170
1. Early identification and assessment of patients who need nutritional intervention i.e.
nutrition support 170, 171
• Improve clinical outcomes e.g. LOS 101, 140, 172
• Improve nutritional status 173-177
2. Reduce prevalence of malnutrition 135
3. Improve recognition and detection of malnutrition 178, 179
4. Increase nutrition-related and malnutrition documentation
• Better reimbursement with inclusion of malnutrition code in diagnosis-related groups
(DRG) 180
5. Increase referrals to dietitians131, 170
6. Reduce under-treatment of malnutrition; reduce patients missed for nutritional
intervention 170, 171, 181
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
45
1.7.2 Nutrition screening tools
There exist a variety of screening tools that incorporate different anthropometric,
biochemical and clinical criteria182, 183. A nutrition screening tool typically uses a
questionnaire-type format183 with each question examining a known risk factor for
malnutrition, and the summation of scores is used to categorise the nutritional risk183.
The tool is usually completed by nursing staff upon hospital admission184, by general
practitioner or healthcare professional in nursing homes185, or may be self-
administered in the community186. Depending on the score or risk category of the
nutrition screen, specified protocols for follow-up action or care plan (e.g. referral of
those screened at risk to a dietitian for more detailed assessment), would be
indicated187-191. Many of the screening tools developed for and applied in hospitals
include weight status (percent ideal body weight for height), weight change, diagnosis
relating to increased nutritional requirements, appetite or adequacy of dietary intake181,
187, 190-197. However, there are no standard criteria for nutrition screening tools.
Therefore the use of different tools may result in a diverse group of individuals being
identified as at risk of malnutrition198.
Nutrition screening tools can be evaluated by their predictive, criterion, and content
validity199, 200. Reviews of over 100 nutrition screening tools identified for general use
and for use in specific population group i.e. older adults182, 183, 201 showed several
limitations. The most common limitations are listed in Table 1-13. A key limitation is
that many screening tools have not been well- validated182, 183. There is no one best
screening tool available, however a good nutrition tool should include most of the
characteristics listed in Table 1-14. Most importantly, a screening tool should be
validated and easy to administer. Most screening tools developed for older adults are
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
46
for general use or more specifically for use in the community and institutionalised
settings201. There are limited screening tools developed specifically for hospitalised
elderly patients that are valid and easy to perform. As a result, general screening tools
developed for hospitalised adults are also applied to geriatric patients202, 203. However
their effectiveness and validity remain in question when administered on elderly
patients as there are limited validation studies in this population.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
47
Table 1-13: Common limitations of available nutrition screening tools 182-184, 201
1. Lack of rigorous evaluation of their reliability and validity
2. Considerable differences between tools in validity, reliability, ease of use and
acceptability
3. Limited predictive ability 202
4. Various reference standards used for validation due to lack of “gold standard” for
malnutrition assessment method and diagnosis204
5. Use of true criterion to assess validity is questionable e.g. based only on pre-albumin or
mainly subjective 181, 191, 193, 205, 206
6. Validated only in specific population and setting, may not be applicable in other settings
due to environmental influences on various risk factors
7. Insufficient information to allow appropriate usage of tools
8. Lack of practical information on tool implementation
9. Non-objective screening parameters based on unsubstantiated criteria and cut-off points
10. Not suitable for hospital wide implementation by nursing staff
• Too lengthy and time-consuming 207
• Too complex or specialised, requiring dietitians to complete
• Invasive
• Nutrition parameters not routinely or easily available e.g. biochemical data 208, 209
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
48
Table 1-14: Characteristics of an effective nutrition screening tool 171, 183, 184, 199,
210-212
1) Simple, quick (<5min to complete)and easy to use and interpret
2) Reliable and reproducible
3) Construct, criterion and content validity
4) Sensitive, specific and predictive
5) Convenient to perform, easily completed by non-professional staff, patient or family
• Use routinely available data
• No laboratory data needed
• Involve no calculations
6) Inexpensive
7) Non-invasive
8) Acceptable to patients
Amongst the available and published nutrition screening tools, the Nutritional Risk
Screening 2002 (NRS 2002)166, Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire
Training required Yes Not stated User Healthcare professional
Healthcare professional
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
81
Table 1-19: Comparison of characteristics between Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and MiniNutritional Assessment (MNA)
(MNA) (continued)
Characteristics SGA 235, 320
MNA 339
Inter-rater agreement Good >80%, kappa >0.7 338
Kappa 0.8 348
Sensitivity; Specificity 82%; 72% in predicting nutritionally associated complications 320 85%; 68% in the elderly 93
96%; 98%218
Convergent validity High correlations with anthropometry, albumin, total serum protein, weight, weight loss 319, 321 97
Correlated well with nutritional intake and with anthropometric (BMI, TSF, MAC, CC) and biochemical (serum albumin) parameters 310, 340
Validation studies in elderly
Yes Yes
Advantages • No biochemical data required • Non-invasive • Simple and accurate • Good for detecting established malnutrition
• No biochemical data required • Non-invasive • Most widely used tool • Able to detect specific problem areas from the individual
questions in the tool, allowing the clinician to target these areas and design specific plans for nutritional intervention 340
• Could be used as a follow up nutritional evaluation tool • Better at detecting patients requiring preventive nutrition
measures 129
Limitations • Does not allow for the categorization of mild malnutrition as it focuses on chronic rather than acute nutritional changes 334
• Not useful for early detection of malnutrition • Not practical to use for follow-up and monitoring during
nutritional support 97
• Require anthropometric measurements • Anthropometric and BMI classifications based on French
elderly, do not take into account ethnic variations • No provisions for assessing patients in tube feeding • Too many questions cannot be completed in patients, leading
to increased subjectivity 349
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; CC: calf circumference; MAC: mid arm circumference; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness;
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
82
1.8.6 Clinical applications of nutrition parameters
The various nutrition parameters discussed in this section 1.8 are compared with
respect to their clinical applications and shown in Table 1-20. Anthropometric
measures could vary in their specificity for diagnosing malnutrition as they are
affected by ageing and diseases associated with hospitalisation279. They tend to lose
their specificity in the sick adults315. For example, muscle wasting in bedridden
patients could happen regardless of their nutritional status. CAMA is the only
anthropometric measure which is able to differentiate between muscle and non-
muscles loss and is less influenced by changes in fluid status. However, limited
studies have evaluated the use of CAMA in hospitalised elderly.
Despite some of the limitations in arm anthropometry, they remain relatively easy to
measure in hospitalised patients. Although BMI is often difficult to obtain and there
are no consensus for an appropriate cut-off, it is nevertheless the most measured
parameter used to define malnutrition. Multi-parameter tools such as the SGA or
MNA may be more superior to anthropometry in their ability to define malnutrition
and predict adverse clinical outcomes. The clinical applications of the parameters
reviewed have not been validated in Singapore hospitalised older adults and their
potential usefulness in this population needs further evaluation.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
83
Table 1-20: Comparisons on the applications of commonly used nutrition parameters in clinical practice
Clinical characteristics (medical records): • Dementia (DSM IV criteria354, Yes/No) • Depression (Yale-Brown Single
question tool355, Yes/No) • Delirium (Yes/No) • Pressure ulcers (Yes/No) • Hip fracture (Yes/No) • Cancer (Yes/No) • Number of prescribed drugs • AMT(abbreviated mental test) scores356 • Functional status for premorbid and on
admission (MBI*)162 • Charlson Comorbidity Index357 (CCI **) • Severity of Illness Index358 (SII**) • Biochemical • Serum albumin (ALB) • Total lymphocyte count (TLC)
Mid-arm muscle area (MAMA)* � � Calf circumference (CC) � � Body mass index (BMI)*^ � � � � Corrected arm muscle area (CAMA)*^
� � � �
Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)^
� � �
Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)^
� � �
Clinical outcomes Length of stay (days)/(<11, >11) � � � Discharge higher level care (Yes, No)
� �
3-month readmission (Yes, No) � � 6-month mortality (Yes, No) � � 6-month MBI (score) � � * derived variables ^ depending on the analysis performed, the variables may be used as independent or dependent variables # Non-Chinese include: Malay, Indian, others. Variables in Bold were included as covariates in the multiple logistic regression analysis
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
122
3 Recruitment and participants’ characteristics by
age
3.1 Introduction and aims Before the study examines the prevalence of malnutrition, the clinical outcomes, and
the implementation of appropriate nutrition assessment and screening approaches, it is
important to first understand the profile of older adults in an acute care hospital in
Singapore.
The aim of this chapter is to describe the recruitment process of participants in this
study and profile them using sociodemographic indicators, nutritional, appetite,
chewing, swallowing status, and clinical characteristics. Participants are stratified into
three age categories, 60-75 years, 76-85 years and > 85 years, for the purpose of
making comparisons. This chapter will answer the first research question, “What are
the nutritional, clinical, appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics of older
adults (stratified by age) upon hospital admission?”
3.2 Recruitment
A total of 654 newly admitted patients under the Geriatric Medicine (GRM) in the
three specialist study wards were screened for eligibility (Figure 3-1). Thirty-nine per
cent (n=258) were excluded due to reasons listed in Table 3-1. Of the remaining 396
who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 281 consented to the study and 115 did not
respond. This represented a recruitment success rate of 71% based on the 396 patients
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
123
who met the recruitment criteria. At the end of the 6-month follow-up, 278
participants completed the study and three (1%) discontinued participation.
The participants in this study had a similar profile to the GRM patients in the hospital
during the recruitment period (November 2006 to July 2007). Due to hospital bed
allocation policy, not all GRM patients are admitted directly to the three specialty
wards in TTSH. Some GRM are admitted to other non-specialty wards in the hospital,
whilst other patients may be admitted to a different discipline and subsequently
transferred under the care of the GRM team. Comparisons between all the GRM
patients in the hospital during the study period, the non-eligible patients from the
three study wards and the study participants are shown in Table 3-2. No significant
differences were revealed between the groups, except for age, where the non-eligible
patients were slightly younger. This is expected given that one of the eligibility
criterion was set at age >60 years old. There were eight patients who were younger
than 60 years old in the ineligible group.
In the other comparison, the study participants and non-respondents were not
significantly different from each other (Table 3-3).
Of the 281 participants who consented to the study, nutritional, appetite, chewing, and
swallowing for assessment were obtained directly from 134 participants (48%).
Families and caregivers provided information for 107 participants (38%) who were
unable to complete the interviews, whilst 37 participants (13%) required the
assistance of families/caregivers to complete the full assessment. Information was
obtained from the nursing homes for three (1%) participants.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
124
Figure 3-1: Flowchart of sample recruitment from three specialist geriatric wards, consent and follow-up rate
Dropout by 6 months follow-up
Consent
Patients screened in the three geriatric wards on admission (November 2006-July 2007)
(n=654)
Yes (n=396) 61%
No (n=258) 39%
Yes (n=281) 71%
Non respondents (n=115)29%
Meet inclusion criteria
Yes (n=3) 1%
No (n=278) 99%
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
125
Table 3-1: Reasons for non-eligibility across the three study wards (n=258)
Aged <60 years 1 <1%
Palliative/terminally ill and age <60 7 3%
Palliative/terminally ill 77 30%
Dangerously ill list 47 18%
Admitted to hospital for >72 hours and still unable to obtain consent
62 24%
Readmission 51 20%
Discharged or deceased prior to recruitment
14 5%
Table 3-2: Comparison between all GRM patients, non-eligible patients from the three study wards and study participants during the study period (November 2006 to July 2007)
All GRM patients#
(n=1789)
Non-eligible patients from 3
study wards (n=258)
Study participants
(n=281)
p value
Age, years, mean +SD 80.0+9.0 79.5+8.9 81.3+7.6* 0.015†
Gender, n(%) Male Female
736(41) 1053(59)
135(52) 124(48)
124(44) 157(56)
0.077‡
Race, n(%) Chinese Malay Indian Other
1533(86)
82(5) 111(6) 63(3)
233(90) 13(5) 10(4) 3(1)
234(83) 22(8) 22(8) 3(1)
0.126‡
# Data based on all Geriatric Medicine (GRM) patients admitted to the hospital (including patients
from the non-participating wards) during the study period (November 2006 to July 2007)
†‡ Comparisons between non-eligible patients from the three study wards and study participants by
independent samples t-test (†) and Chi-square(‡)
* Significantly different between the non-eligible patients from the three study wards and study
participants, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
126
Table 3-3: Comparison between non-respondents and study participants
Non-respondents (n=115)
Study participants (n=281)
p value
Age, years, mean+SD 80.9+7.4 81.3+7.6 0.698†
Gender, n(%) Male Female
40(35) 75(65)
124(44) 157(56)
0.087‡
Race, n(%) Chinese Malay Indian Other
99(86) 9(8) 7(1) 0(0)
234(83) 22(8) 22(8) 3(1)
0.65‡
†‡ Comparisons between non-eligible patients and study participants by independent samples
t-test (†) and Chi-square(‡)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
127
3.3 Participants’ (n= 281) characteristics
The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants stratified according to age
groups are presented in Table 3-4. The mean (+SD) age of the study participants was
81.3 (+7.6) years, with 82 participants (29%) >85 years. Chinese was the predominant
race (83%), 97% were community-dwellers, 99% were retirees, 97% were non-
smokers and 99% were non-drinkers. Marital status was significantly different
(p<0.05) between the age groups.
The nutritional characteristics of the participants stratified according to age groups are
presented in Table 3-5. A large proportion of the participants, 73% (n=204) were
unaware of their usual body weight. Upon admission, 85% (n=238) of participants
had their weight measured by the dietitian and nursing staff. One hundred and
seventy-five (62%) participants reported unquantifiable weight loss in the past six
months prior to hospital admission. Knee height measure was unobtainable in four
participants due contractures in the legs. Consequently, BMI and MNA were not
available for 45 (16%) participants. The mean (+SD) BMI was 21.1 (+4.0) kg/m2,
with 24%, 14% and 3% classified as underweight (<18.5kg/m2), overweight (25.0-
29.9 kg/m2) and obese (>30 kg/m2), respectively. The SGA was the only nutritional
assessment method that could be administered to all the participants. Admission
weight, estimated height from knee height, arm and calf measurements, and full MNA
score, were significantly different between the age groups (p<0.05). A decreasing
trend with the lowest measurements in the oldest age group (>85 years) was evident.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
128
The appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics of the participants stratified
according to age groups are presented in Table 3-6. Ninety per cent of participants
self-reported to have poor dentition. Forty-two per cent self-reported poor appetite
prior to hospitalisation. Sixty-four per cent self-reported having dentures, of which
29% were reportedly poor fitting. Ten per cent had swallowing impairment
documented in their medical records. Forty-one per cent self-reported to be on a
modified texture diet. None of these characteristics was significantly different
between the age groups.
The participants were admitted to the GRM wards with the five most frequent
infection (10%), muscular-skeletal problems/fractures (8%), and gastrointestinal
problems (6%). The clinical characteristics of the participants stratified according to
age groups are presented in Table 3-7. The mean (+SD) number of prescribed drugs
was 4.6 (+3.0), mean (+SD) Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) score was 5.7 (+3.3),
mean (+SD) Modified Barthel Index (MBI) score on admission was 59.3 (+28.1) and
33% participants had been diagnosed with dementia. AMT score, serum albumin, and
Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were significantly different (p<0.05) between the
age groups.
The clinical outcomes of the participants stratified according to age groups are
presented in Table 3-8. The median LOS was nine days (range 2-50 days) and 44%
participants had LOS >11days. Twenty-nine per cent were discharged to higher level
care. Readmission rate was 35% at 3-months, and. mortality at 6-months was 11%.
Mean (+SD) MBI at 6-months was 70.5 (+31.9). MBI at 6-months was the only
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
129
clinical outcome significantly different (p<0.05), between the age groups with the
lowest MBI shown among those aged >85 years.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
130
Table 3-4: Sociodemographic characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups
Demographics Total (n=281) 60-75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137) >85 yrs (n=82) p value‡ Age, years 81.3+7.6 70.9+3.7 80.7+2.9 90.0+3.8 - Gender Male Female
124(44) 157(56)
33(53) 29(47)
59(43) 78(57)
32(39) 50(61)
0.222
Race Chinese Malay Indian Others
234(83) 22(8) 22(8) 3(1)
48(77) 8(13) 4(7) 2(3)
113(82) 11(8) 12(9) 1(1)
73(89) 3(4) 6(7) 0(0)
0.203#
Marital status Single Married Divorced/widowed
22(8) 97(34) 162(58)
10(16) 33(53) 19(31)
7(5)
44(32) 86(63)
5(6)* 20(24) 57(70)
<0.001
Preadmission dwelling Community Institutionalised
272(97)
9(3)
61(98) 1(2)
133(97)
4(3)
78(95) 4(5)
0.526#
Occupation Retired Working
277(99)
4(1)
59(95) 3(5)
137(100)
0(0)
81(99) 1(1)
0.028#
Smoking Yes No
8(3)
273(97)
4(6)
58(94)
3(2)
134(98)
1(1)
81(99)
0.141#
Alcohol Yes No
3(1)
278(99)
3(5)
59(95)
0(0)
137(100)
0(0)
82(100)
0.005#
Results in table are expressed as n(%), except for age as mean+SD. ‡Comparisons between age groups performed by Chi-squared test; # More than 50% of cell counts less than 5, Chi-squared test may not be valid * Significantly different between the age groups, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
131
Table 3-5: Nutritional characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups
Anthropometrics n Total (n=281) 60- 75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137) >85 yrs (n=82) F value p value† Weight, height, BMI Usual weight (kg)a 77 54.3+10.2(30.1-76.0) 58.7+8.7(40-76) 53.6+10.6(35-76) 50.9+9.6(30.1-67) 2.78 0.069
Well-nourished, >23.5 At risk, 17-23.5 Malnourished, <17
236
56(24) 126(53) 54(23)
20(36) 25(46) 10(18)
25(22) 64(57) 24(21)
11(16) 37(54) 20(30)
0.082‡
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; MAC: mid-arm circumference; TSF: triceps skinfold thickness; MAMC: mid-arm muscle circumference; MAMA: mid-arm muscle area; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; CC: calf circumference; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: MiniNutritional Assessment Results are expressed as mean+SD(range) for all anthropometric measurements and full MNA score and as n(%) for SGA and MNA nutrition status. TSF expressed as median (range) as it was a non-parametric variable. †‡§Comparisons between age groups performed by ANOVA (†), Chi-squared test (‡) and Kruskal Wallis Test (§) * Significantly different between age groups >85yrs and 60-75 yrs based on post-hoc Bonferroni test. ** Significantly different between groups >85yrs and 60-75 yrs, and groups >85 yrs and 76-85 yrs, based on post-hoc Bonferroni test ***Significantly different between the age groups, p<0.05. No post-hoc test for Kruskal Wallis Test. a Self-reported by participants or caregivers. Most participants were unaware of their usual weight resulting in a low response rate (n=77). b Weight loss 6-month prior admission as self-reported by participants or caregivers. 98% of those who reported weight loss were unable to quantify the actual amount of loss. c Height estimated from knee height using predictive equations: Men: 51.16 + (2.24 x knee height) and Women: 46.11 + (2.46 x knee height) – (0.12 x age)253 d Calculated from estimated height from knee height. Only 236 out of 281 participants were clinically safe to have both weight and knee height measured on admission
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
133
Table 3-6: Appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups
Appetite, chewing and swallowing n Total (n=281) 60-75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137) >85 yrs (n=82) p value‡ ^Appetite Good Poor
274# 159(58) 115(42)
34(55) 28(45)
82(62) 50(38)
43(54) 37(46)
0.744
^Taste change Yes No
274# 10(4)
264(96)
2(3)
60(97)
5(4)
127(96)
3(4)
77(96)
0.980
^Dentition Good Poor
281 29(10) 252(90)
7(11) 55(89)
15(11) 122(89)
7(8)
75(92)
0.817
^Dentures Yes No
281 180(64) 101(36)
39(63) 23(37)
86(63) 51(37)
55(67) 27(33)
0.795
^Fitting of dentures Well Poor
180 127(71) 53(29)
30(77) 9(23)
58(67) 28(33)
39(71) 16(29)
0.558
Swallowing impairment Yes No
281 29(10) 252(90)
5(8)
57(92)
12(9)
125(91)
12(15) 70(85)
0.309
^Modified texture diet Yes No
274# 113(41) 161(59)
19(31) 43(69)
55(42) 77(58)
39(49) 41(51)
0.093
^Thickened fluid Yes No
274# 9(3)
265(97)
3(5)
59(95)
3(2)
129(98)
3(4)
77(96)
0.621*
Results in table are expressed as n(%). ^Self-reported by participants or caregivers. # Participants on nasogastric feedings (n=7) were excluded. ‡Comparisons between age groups performed by Chi-squared test. * More than 50% of cell counts less than 5, Chi-squared test may not be valid
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
134
Table 3-7: Clinical characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups
Clinical n Total (n=281) 60-75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137) >85 yrs (n=82) F value p value‡ aDementia Yes No
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
135
Table 3-7: Clinical characteristics of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups (continued)
Biochemical n Total (n=281) 60-75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137) >85 yrs (n=82) F value p value‡ Serum albumin (mg/L) >= 35mg/L < 35mg/L
276 32.3+5.2(15-43) 104(38) 172(62)
33.7+5.9(17-43) 32(53) 28(47)
32.5+4.8(15-42) 49(36) 86(64)
31.1+5.2(15-40)* 23(28)* 58(72)
4.57 0.011† 0.009
TLC (x103/mm3) >= 1.5x103/mm3 < 1.5x103/mm3
281 1.2 (0.1-4.0) 107(38) 174(62)
1.3 (0.1-3.7) 25(40) 37(60)
1.3 (0.3-3.6) 59(43) 78(57)
1.1 (0.3-4.0) 23(28) 59(72)
- 0.196§ 0.079
Abbreviations: AMT: abbreviated mental test; TLC: total lymphocyte count; MBI: Modified Barthel Index Results are expressed as n(%) or mean+SD(range). TLC expressed as median (range) as it was a non-parametric variable. †‡§Comparisons between age groups performed by ANOVA (†), Chi-squared test(‡) and Kruskal Wallis Test (§) * Significantly different between age groups >85yrs and 60-75 yrs based on post-hoc Bonferroni test. ** Significantly different between groups >85yrs and 60-75 yrs, and groups >85 yrs and 76-85 yrs, based on post-hoc Bonferroni test a Defined using DSM IV criteria354 by physician b Defined using a single question “Do you often feel sad or depressed?”355 c Abbreviated Mental Test356 – 10-item test with maximum of 10 points. Score <7 indicates cognitive impairment368 d Modified from original severity of illness index358 into 4 level (of increasing severity from 1 to 4) burden of illness measure. e Charlson comorbidity index357 takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid diseases. Higher scores indicate a more severe
condition and prognosis. f Modified Barthel Index162 evaluates the level of assistance required for activities of daily living. Scoring is based on a continuous scale 0-100,
with 100 indicating independent function.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
136
Table 3-8: Clinical outcomes of 281 hospitalised older adults (>60 years) and according to age groups
Outcomes
n Total (n=281) 60-75 yrs (n=62) 76-85 yrs (n=137)
>85 yrs (n=82) F value p value‡
LOS, days >/= 11 days <11 days
280 9(2-50) 123(44) 157(56)
9(2-32) 28(46) 33(54)
9(3-42) 57(42) 80(58)
9(2-50) 38(46) 44(54)
0.09 0.759§
0.744
Discharge higher level care Yes No
277 81(29) 196(71)
21(34) 40(66)
37(27) 99(73)
23(29) 57(71)
- 0.584
3-month Readmission Yes No
261 91(35) 170(65)
14(24) 44(76)
49(38) 81(62)
28(38) 45(62)
- 0.150
6-month Mortality Yes No
279 32(11) 247(89)
5(8)
56(92)
14(10) 122(90)
13(16) 69(84)
- 0.304
6-month MBI 246 70.5+31.9 80.1+26.3
69.7+33.0
64.1+32.5*
4.10 0.018†
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: Modified Barthel Index Results in table are expressed as n(%), median (range) for LOS, or mean+SD for 6-month MBI. †‡Comparisons between age groups performed by ANOVA (†), Chi-squared test(‡) and Kruskal Wallis Test (§) * Significantly different between age groups >85yrs and 60-75 yrs based on post-hoc Bonferroni test.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
137
3.4 Discussion
3.4.1 Recruitment
The study recruitment rate was relatively high (71%) and the participant retention rate
was extremely good at 99%. The participants’ characteristics reflected were similar to
that of the study population. All these indicate that the study sample was a close
representation of the patients admitted to the GRM wards at TTSH.
A large proportion (39%) of the sample screened was ineligible, with up to half being
terminally ill (30%) or dangerously ill (18%; Table 3-1). The participants who were
excluded from the study due to their medical conditions may have higher malnutrition
risk369. Therefore the recruited sample might have underestimated the prevalence of
malnutrition and its impact on adverse outcomes in older adults from acute care.
Another 24% screened were admitted for more than 72 hours and hence considered
ineligible. These included GRM patients who were transferred into the study wards
from the non-study wards in TTSH, and those whom families could not be contacted
for consent within the stipulated timeframe.
3.4.2 Participants’ characteristics
Fewer than half the participants (48%) could provide information independently for
all aspects of their assessment. This indicated that the reliance on proxies
(families/caregivers) was crucial to complete the assessments. Although only a small
proportion (10%) of the participants had documented swallowing impairment, 40% of
participants self-reported being on modified consistency diets. This could be partly
attributed to poor dentition reported by a large proportion of participants (90%). Their
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
138
poor oral health could directly affect the adequacy of their oral intake with modified
consistency diets47, 370, 371. In addition, 42% reported to have poor appetite and 33%
were cognitively impaired, which could further impact on their oral intake. Up to two-
thirds of the participants reported weight loss 6-month prior to admission, and most
participants had multiple comorbidities. All these findings highlighted that a large
proportion of participants had characteristics associated with high malnutrition risk.
The oldest age group (>85 years), which made up 29% of the study population, were
clinically and nutritionally different from the youngest (60-75 years) age group. The
oldest group was significantly poorer in nutritional characteristics, particularly
anthropometric measurements (Table 3-5). They also had a higher number of and
more serious comorbid diseases, were more cognitively impaired, (Table 3-7) and had
poorer functional status 6-months post-discharge (Table 3-8). These characteristics
suggested that the oldest old were exposed to greater malnutrition risks compared to
the youngest old in this study and they should be given more attention and receive
closer monitoring.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
139
3.5 Conclusion
The sample from this study consisted of hospitalised older adults who are
representative of the GRM patients in TTSH. These participants presented with a high
prevalence of established risk factors for malnutrition (as discussed in section 1.2).
These risks were even more prevalent with increased age, especially amongst the
oldest old (>85 years). Their poorer nutritional and clinical characteristics made them
more vulnerable to and predisposed them to higher risks of developing malnutrition
prior to and during hospitalisation. Therefore upon acute hospital admission, they
would most likely benefit from closer assessment and monitoring of their nutritional
status.
The prevalence of malnutrition is described in more detail, and the extent to which the
risk factors (participants’ characteristics) were associated with malnutrition is
presented and discussed in the next chapter.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
140
4 Prevalence of malnutrition and comparison of
participants’ characteristics by nutritional status
4.1 Introduction and aims
Older hospitalised patients are more likely to experience poor nutritional status
(discussed in section 1.4) and this has been widely reported in Western countries.
However it has not been as well-studied in Asia and Singapore (discussed in section
1.5). It is therefore important to establish the malnutrition prevalence in Singapore
acute care settings and to characterise malnourished patients so appropriate
malnutrition prevention and intervention programs can be planned and implemented
to effectively manage it.
The aim of this chapter is to describe the prevalence of malnutrition, defined by SGA,
MNA, BMI and CAMA, of older adults on admission to a Singapore acute hospital
and their associated characteristics. Participant sociodemographic, nutritional, appetite,
chewing, swallowing and clinical characteristics are compared by classifying them as
well-nourished or malnourished. The objective is to identify the factors associated
with malnutrition on admission. This chapter will answer the second research question,
“What is the prevalence of malnutrition, as defined SGA, MNA, BMI, CAMA, of
older adults upon hospital admission and its associated characteristics?”
4.2 Methods
Four different nutritional assessment tools and indices, SGA, MNA, BMI, CAMA
(discussed in Chapter 2 section 2.2.2), were used to define malnutrition in this study.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
141
The SGA categories B and C were combined to form the “malnourished” category in
this study, as the frequency for SGA category C (17/281; 6%) was relatively low.
MNA classification for nutritional status was also dichotomised (well-nourished/at
risk and malnourished) as a clear distinction needed to be made between well-
nourished and malnourished participants. This was previously discussed in Chapter 2
(section 2.2.2.2).
The prevalence of malnutrition using the four identified assessment methods was
described and kappa estimates were derived to evaluate the agreement of malnutrition
assessment between them. Participants with and without admission weight
measurements were analysed to identify any differences in their characteristics and
malnutrition prevalence. To identify the characteristics associated with malnutrition,
the well-nourished and malnourished participants (across all four methods of
malnutrition assessment) were compared using independent samples t-test, Chi-
squared test and Mann-Whitney test.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
142
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Prevalence of malnutrition on admission
The four nutritional assessment tools and indices yielded a range (23% to 35%) of
malnutrition prevalence (Figure 4-1). SGA detected the highest prevalence (35%) of
malnutrition, while MNA detected the lowest prevalence (23%). The completion rate
for MNA and BMI was 84% (n=236) due to unavailability of admission weight
(n=43) and/or knee height (n=3) measurements. CAMA and SGA were completed for
99% and 100% of participants, respectively. Prevalence of malnutrition was higher
among participants aged >85 years (Table 3-5: 30-40% across all assessment
methods) than those aged <75 years (18-29% across all assessment methods).
The lack of admission weight was the main reason for incomplete MNA and BMI
(n=43/45). Table 4-1 compares the characteristics of the participants with and without
admission weight measurements to identify any differences in those excluded from
the MNA and BMI analysis. Participants without admission weight had significantly
higher mean Severity of Illness Index scores (SII; 2.2+0.5 vs 2.1+0.3, p<0.05), lower
mean admission MBI (31.5+27.7 vs 64.3+25.2, p<0.05) and were more malnourished
(defined by SGA, 51% vs 32%, p<0.05). They were not significantly different in any
of the sociodemographic, cognitive and comorbidity characteristics.
The SGA and MNA had moderately strong agreement (84%, kappa estimates 0.60;
Table 4-2)372. The agreement between the malnutrition assessment methods were
fair372 (74-82%) as shown by the kappa estimates (0.35-0.52, p<0.001; Table 4-2).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
143
Figure 4-1: Prevalence of malnutrition among older adults (>60 years) on
admission to specialist geriatric wards using different malnutrition assessment
methods
35
23 24
28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mal
nour
ishe
d, %
SGA (n=281)MNA (n=236)BMI (n=236)CAMA (n=278)
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment;
BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area
Assessment methods of malnutrition:
SGA*: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B
(moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235;
* Refer to Table 3-5 for prevalence of each SGA rating A, B and C, and each MNA
categories of well-nourished, at risk and malnourished.
Note: Only 236 out of 281 participants were clinically fit to have both their weight and knee
height measurements taken on admission
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
144
Table 4-1 : Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition prevalence between those with and without weight measurements on admission
Admission weight
available
(n=238)
Admission weight
not available
(n=43)
P value‡
Age 81.0+7.7 82.9+6.6 0.118†
Gender-Male
-Female
104(44)
134(56)
20(47)
23(53)
0.732
Race-Chinese
-Non-Chinese
197(83)
41(17)
37(86)
6(14)
0.597
Dementia -Yes
- No
76(32)
162(68)
18(42)
25(58)
0.204
Depression-Yes
- No
61(27)
167(73)
9(22)
31(78)
0.572
Number of
prescribed drugs
4.6+2.9 4.5+3.2 0.871†
Severity of Illness a 2.1+0.3 2.2+0.5 0.016†
Charlson
Comorbidity Index b
5.5+1.4 5.6+1.1 0.573†
Admission MBI c 64.3+25.2 31.5+27.7 <0.001†
SGA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
163(68)
75(32)
21(49)
22(51)
0.013
CAMA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
174(74)
62(26)
25(60)
17(40)
0.060
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; MBI; Modified Barthel Index Results in table are expressed as n(% of total) or mean+SD. †‡Comparison between participants with and without admission weight was performed using independent samples t-test(†) and Chi-squared test(‡). SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; CAMA : Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female), Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
a Modified from original Severity of Illness Index358 into 4 level (of increasing severity from 1 to 4) burden of illness measure.
b Charlson Comorbidity Index357 takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid diseases. Higher scores indicate a more severe condition and prognosis.
c Modified Barthel Index162 evaluates the level of assistance required for activities of daily living. Scoring is based on a continuous scale 0-100, with 100 indicating independent function.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
145
Table 4-2: Classification and agreement of the four different malnutrition assessment methods applied to hospitalised older adults (>60 years)
MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278)
n Well-nourished (n=182)
Malnourished (n=54)
Well-nourished (n=179)
Malnourished (n=57)
Well-nourished (n=199)
Malnourished (n=79)
SGA Well-nourished Malnourished Agreement (%) Kappa p value
281 153(65) 29(12)
9(4)* 45(19)
84 0.596 <0.001
146(62) 33(14)
16(7)* 41(17)
79 0.486
<0.001
154(55) 45(16)
28(10)* 51(18)
74 0.394 <0.001
MNA Well-nourished Malnourished Agreement (%) Kappa p value
236 153(65) 26(11)
29(12) * 28(12)
77 0.352
<0.001
150(64) 24(10)
32(14)* 30(13)
76 0.361
<0.001 BMI Well-nourished Malnourished Agreement (%) Kappa p value
236
155(66) 19(8)
24(10)* 38(16)
82 0.517
<0.001 Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment Results are expressed as n(% of total). Measure of agreement using kappa estimates * Significantly good agreement between the two malnutrition assessment methods, p<0.05 SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; CAMA: Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
146
4.3.2 Comparison of participants’ characteristics b y nutritional
status on admission
The sociodemographic characteristics of participants stratified by nutritional status are
presented in Table 4-3. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) in
sociodemographic characteristics between the well-nourished and malnourished
participants, except that CAMA-defined malnourished participants were significantly
older (82.8+7.2 vs 80.7+7.7 years, p<0.05) and constituted more Chinese (92% vs
80%, p<0.05). Significantly more (p<0.05) malnourished participants defined by BMI
were institutionalised prior to hospital admission (9% vs 2%).
The appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics of participants were shown to
be significantly (p<0.05) associated with nutritional status (Table 4-4). A significantly
higher proportion of malnourished participants (regardless of malnutrition assessment
methods) had swallowing impairment (16-26% vs 3-6%), poor appetite (53-77% vs
24-38%) and were on a modified texture diet (49-59% vs 33-37%) as compared to the
well-nourished participants. All malnourished groups, except the BMI-defined group,
had a significantly higher number of participants with poor-fitting dentures (33-43%
vs 22-25%). BMI-defined malnourished participants had poorer dentition (98% vs
88%), whilst more malnourished participants defined by MNA had taste changes
(10% vs 2%) and were on thickened fluid (10% vs 2%).
This study showed that regardless of the assessment methods used to determine
nutritional status, there were significant (p<0.05) differences in clinical characteristics
between the well-nourished and malnourished groups (Table 4-5). Pre-morbid MBI,
admission MBI, AMT score and serum albumin were significantly lower (p<0.05)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
147
among the malnourished groups across all assessment methods of malnutrition. The
malnourished patients were more likely to have dementia (44-56% vs 24-29%). All
malnourished groups, except the BMI-defined group, had significantly higher
Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores. Depression was significantly higher in the
SGA- and MNA-defined malnourished groups. TLC was significantly lower in the
BMI- and CAMA-defined malnourished groups.
Participants’ characteristics found to be significantly associated with malnutrition are
summarised in Table 4-6. There were eight characteristics which were significantly
associated with all the assessment methods of malnutrition. These included those who
reported to have poor appetite, to be on a modified texture diet, presented with
swallowing and cognitive impairment, low serum albumin, poor functional status, and
who suffered from dementia or depression. MNA- and CAMA-defined malnutrition
was shown to be significantly associated with the most number (n=13) of participant
characteristics compared to BMI (n=12), and SGA (n=11).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
148
Table 4-3: Sociodemographic characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission
SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278)
Demographics Well-nourished (n=184)
Malnourished (n=97)
Well-nourished (n=182)
Malnourished (n=54)
Well-nourished (n=179)
Malnourished (n=57)
Well-nourished (n=199)
Malnourished (n=79)
Mean Age, years p value†
81.0+7.7 (61-102)
81.9+7.4 (64-102)
0.351
80.7+7.8 (61-100)
82.1+7.6 (64-102)
0.242
80.7+7.7 (61-100)
81.9+7.9 (65-102)
0.313
80.7+7.7 (61-102)
82.8+7.2* (65-102)
0.045 Gender Male Female p value‡
77(42) 107(58)
47(48) 50(52) 0.289
81(45) 101(55)
21(39) 33(61) 0.464
73(41) 106(59)
29(51) 28(49) 0.180
90(45) 109(55)
31(39) 48(61) 0.364
Race Chinese Non-Chinese (Malay, Indian, Other) p value‡
153(83) 31(17)
81(84) 16(16)
1.000
155(85) 27(15)
42(78) 12(22)
0.199
151(84) 28(16)
46(81) 11(19)
0.518
160(80) 39(20)
73(92) 6(8)
0.014
Marital status Single Married Divorced/Widowed p value ‡
13(7) 64(35) 107(58)
9(9)
33(34) 55(57) 0.740
16(9) 66(36) 100(55)
6(11) 16(30) 32(59) 0.636
16(9) 63(35) 100(56)
6(11) 19(33) 32(56) 0.923
13(7) 72(36) 114(57)
9(11) 22(28) 48(61) 0.227
Social history Community Institutionalised p value ‡ ̂
181(98)
3(2)
91(94) 6(6)
0.068
178(98)
4(2)
50(93) 4(7)
0.083
176(98)
3(2)
52(91)*
5(9) 0.022
194(97)
5(3)
75(95) 4(5)
0.279
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
149
Table 4-3: Sociodemographic characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission (continued)
SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278)
Demographics Well-nourished (n=184)
Malnourished (n=97)
Well-nourished (n=182)
Malnourished (n=54)
Well-nourished (n=179)
Malnourished (n=57)
Well-nourished (n=199)
Malnourished (n=79)
Occupation Retired Working p value ‡ ̂
180(98)
4(2)
97(100)
0(0) 0.302
179(98)
4(2)
54(100)
0(0) 0.576
175(98)
4(2)
57(100)
0(0) 0.575
195(98)
4(2)
79(100)
0(0) 0.580
Smoking: Yes No p value ‡ ̂
6(3) 178(97)
2(2) 95(98) 0.719
7(4) 175(96)
1(2) 53(98) 0.686
6(3) 173(97)
2(4) 55(96) 1.000
7(4) 192(96)
1(1) 78(99) 0.447
Alcohol: Yes No p value ‡ ̂
2(1) 182(99)
1(1) 96(99) 1.000
2(1) 180(99)
1(2) 53(98) 0.543
2(1) 177(99)
1(2) 56(98) 0.565
2(1) 197(99)
1(1) 78(99) 1.000
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area †‡^ Comparisons between well-nourished and malnourished participants within each malnutrition assessment method performed by independent samples t-test (†) and Chi-squared test(‡). Fisher exact test was presented when expected count for at least one cell was less than 5(^). * Significantly different between the well-nourished and malnourished participants for each malnutrition assessment method, p<0.05 SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; CAMA : Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
150
Table 4-4: Appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission
n SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278)
Appetite, chewing and swallowing
Well-nourished (n=184)
Malnourished (n=97)
Well-nourished (n=182)
Malnourished (n=54)
Well-nourished (n=179)
Malnourished (n=57)
Well-nourished (n=199)
Malnourished (n=79)
^Appetite Good Poor p value ‡
274# 137(76) 43(24)
22(23)* 72(77) <0.001
121(67) 60(33)
17(33)* 35(67) <0.001
116(65) 62(35)
22(40)* 33(60) 0.001
122(62) 74(38)
35(47)* 40(53) 0.016
^Taste Change Yes No p value ‡ ̂
274# 4(2)
176(98)
6(6)
88(94) 0.097
4(2)
117(98)
5(10)* 47(90) 0.028
7(4)
171(96)
2(4)
53(96) 1.000
5(3)
191(97)
5(7)
70(93) 0.146
^Dentition Good Poor p value ‡ ̂
281 22(12) 162(88)
7(7)
90(93) 0.214
20(11) 162(89)
2(4)
52(96) 0.106
21(12) 158(88)
1(2)* 56(98) 0.024
24(12) 175(88)
4(5)
75(95) 0.080
^Dentures Yes No p value ‡
281 115(62) 69(38)
65(67) 32(33) 0.454
117(64) 65(36)
35(65) 19(35) 0.943
114(64) 65(36)
38(67) 19(33) 0.682
126(63) 73(37)
52(66) 27(34) 0.695
^Fitting of dentures Well Poor p value ‡
180 89(77) 26(23)
38(58)* 27(42) 0.007
91(78) 26(22)
20(57)* 15(43) 0.016
86(75) 28(25)
25(66) 13(33) 0.246
94(75) 32(25)
31(60)* 21(40) 0.047
Swallowing Impairment Yes No p value ‡
281 10(5)
174(95)
19(20)* 78(80) <0.001
6(3)
176(97)
14(26)* 40(74) <0.001
11(6)
168(94)
9(16)* 48(84) 0.030
12(6)
187(94)
16(20)* 63(80) <0.001
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
151
Table 4-4: Appetite, chewing and swallowing characteristics [n(%)] of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission (continued)
n SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278)
Appetite, chewing and swallowing
Well-nourished (n=184)
Malnourished (n=97)
Well-nourished (n=182)
Malnourished (n=54)
Well-nourished (n=179)
Malnourished (n=57)
Well-nourished (n=199)
Malnourished (n=79)
^Modified Texture Diet Yes No p value ‡
274# 61(34) 119(66)
52(55)* 42(45) 0.001
63(35) 118(65)
32(62)* 20(38) 0.001
65(37) 113(63)
30(55)* 25(45) 0.019
73(37) 123(63)
39(52)* 36(48) 0.038
^Thickened fluid Yes No p value ‡ ̂
274# 4(2)
176(98)
5(5)
89(95) 0.282
3(2)
178(98)
5(10)* 47(90) 0.015
5(3)
173(97)
3(5)
52(95) 0.346
4(2)
192(98)
4(5)
71(95) 0.152
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area ^Self-reported by participants or caregivers. # Participants on nasogastric feedings (n=7) were excluded. ‡^ Comparisons between well-nourished and malnourished participants within each nutrition diagnostic criterion performed by Chi-square(‡).Fisher exact test was presented when expected count for at least one cell was less than 5(^). * Significantly different between the well-nourished and malnourished participants within the nutrition diagnostic criterion, p<0.05 SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; CAMA : Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
152
Table 4-5: Clinical characteristics of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission
n SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278) Clinical Well-nourished
(n=184) Malnourished
(n=97) Well-nourished
(n=182) Malnourished
(n=54) Well-nourished
(n=179) Malnourished
(n=57) Well-nourished
(n=199) Malnourished
(n=79) aDementia: Yes No p value ‡
281 51(28) 133(72)
43(44)* 54(56) 0.005
46(25) 136(75)
29(54)* 25(46) <0.001
43(24) 136(76)
32(56)* 25(44) <0.001
58(29) 141(71)
35(44)* 44(56) 0.016
bDepression: Yes No p value ‡
268 39(22) 137(78)
31(34)* 61(66) 0.041
40(23) 136(77)
20(40)* 30(60) 0.015
43(25) 130(75)
17(32) 36(68) 0.298
49(26) 142(74)
20(27) 54(73) 0.819
Delirium: Yes No p value ‡
279 18(10) 166(90)
13(14) 82(86) 0.326
13(7) 169(93)
5(9) 48(91) 0.564
12(7) 166(93)
6(11) 51(89) 0.392
18(9) 179(91)
12(15) 67(85) 0.144
Total number prescribed drugs p value †
281 4.6+3.1(0-12) 4.6+2.7(0-10) 0.924
4.4+3.0(0-12) 5.2+2.6(0-11) 0.080
4.7+2.9(0-12) 4.3+2.9(0-11) 0.387
4.6+3.0(0-12) 4.4+3.0(0-11) 0.714
cAMT score p value †
257 6.2+3.1 (0-10)
4.9+3.4* (0-10) 0.002
6.3+3.0 (0-10)
4.4+3.6* (0-10) <0.001
6.2+3.1 (0-10)
4.7+3.3* (0-10) 0.003
6.2+3.1 (0-10)
4.5+3.3* (0-10) <0.001
dSeverity of Illness Index Score p value †
280 2.1+0.4 (1-4)
2.1+0.3 (1-3) 0.640
2.1+0.3 (1-4)
2.1+0.4 (1-3) 0.850
2.1+0.4 (1-4)
2.1+0.3 (1-3) 0.941
2.1+0.4 (1-4)
2.1+0.4 (1-4) 0.866
eCharlson Comorbidity Index p value †
280 5.3+1.4(3-12) 5.7+1.3*(2-10) 0.028
5.2+1.3(2-10) 6.3+1.4*(4-12) <0.001
5.4+1.5(2-12) 5.6+1.3(3-9) 0.390
5.3+1.3(2-9) 5.9+1.6*(3-12) 0.001
Functional fPre-morbid MBI p value †
281 86.5+23.5 (0-100)
68.4+33.8* (0-100) <0.001
90.2+18.3 (0-100)
65.9+31.7* (0-100) <0.001
88.3+19.3 (0-100)
73.2+33.0* (0-100) <0.001
86.3+22.7 (0-100)
65.8+26.1* (0-100) <0.001
Admission MBI p value †
281 65.1+25.4 (0-100)
48.3+29.8* (0-100) <0.001
70.0+22.0 (0-100)
46.9+26.4* (0-100) <0.001
69.2+22.8 (0-100)
50.5+26.4* (0-100) <0.001
64.7+25.8 (0-100)
46.7+29.7* (0-100) <0.001
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
153
Table 4-5: Clinical characteristics of 281 older adults aged >60 years according to nutritional status on admission (continued)
n SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278) Biochemical Well-nourished
(n=184) Malnourished
(n=97) Well-nourished
(n=182) Malnourished
(n=54) Well-nourished
(n=179) Malnourished
(n=57) Well-nourished
(n=199) Malnourished
(n=79) Serum albumin (mg/L) p value † >= 35mg/L < 35mg/L p value ‡
276 33.7+4.2 (18-43)
83(46) 98(54)
29.8+6.1* (15-41) <0.001 21(22)* 74(78) <0.001
33.5+4.5 (18-43)
82(46) 96(54)
30.6+5.7* (17-41) <0.001 13(25)* 40(75) 0.005
33.4+4.4 (17-43)
78(45) 97(55)
31.3+6.0* (18-41) 0.005 17(30) 39(70) 0.060
33.2+4.7 (15-43)
85(43) 111(57)
30.2+4.9* (15-41) <0.001 18(23)* 59(77) 0.002
TLC (x103/mm3) p value § >= 1.5x103/mm3 < 1.5x103/mm3
p value ‡
281 1.2 (0.3-4.0)
68(37) 116(63)
1.2 (0.1-3.4)
0.907 39(40) 58(60) 0.594
1.2 (0.1-4.0)
63(35) 119(65)
1.2 (0.3-3.4)
0.640 22(41) 32(59) 0.410
1.3 (0.3-4.0)
73(41) 106(59)
1.0* (0.1-2.6)
0.001 12(21)* 45(79) 0.007
1.3 (0.3-4.0)
81(41) 118(59)
1.0* (0.1-3.2)
0.009 25(32) 54(68) 0.161
Abbreviations: AMT: Abbreviated Mental Test; TLC: total lymphocyte count; MBI: Modified Barthel Index Results are expressed as n(%) or mean+SD(range). TLC was expressed as median (range) as it was a non-parametric variable. †‡§ Comparisons between well-nourished and malnourished participants within each malnutrition assessment method performed by independent samples t-test (†), Chi-squared test(‡) and Mann-Whitney Test (§) * Significantly different between the well-nourished and malnourished participants within the malnutrition assessment method, p<0.05 a Defined using DSM IV criteria354 by physician b Defined using a single question “Do you often feel sad or depressed?”355 c Abbreviated Mental Test356 – 10-item test with maximum of 10 points. Score <7 indicates cognitive impairment368 d Modified from original Severity of Illness Index358 into 4 level (of increasing severity from 1 to 4) burden of illness measure. e Charlson Comorbidity Index357 takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid diseases. Higher scores indicate a more severe
condition and prognosis. f Modified Barthel Index162 evaluates the level of assistance required for activities of daily living. Scoring is based on a continuous scale 0-100, with
100 indicating independent function. SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; CAMA: Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
154
Table 4-6: Summary of patient characteristics significantly associated with malnutrition on admission as assessed by four
different malnutrition assessment methods
Characteristics SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278) Old age �
Institutionalised �
Poor appetite � � � �
Taste change �
Poor dentition �
Poor fitting dentures � � �
Swallowing impairment � � � �
Modified texture diet � � � �
Thickened fluid �
Dementia � � � �
Depression � � � �
Low AMT score � � � �
High Charlson Comorbidity Index � � �
Low serum albumin � � � �
Low TLC � � Poor pre-morbid and admission MBI
� � � �
Abbreviations: AMT: Abbreviated Mental Test; TLC: total lymphocyte count; MBI: Modified Barthel Index Characteristics in bold are associated with malnutrition regardless of the assessment methods of malnutrition
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
155
4.4 Discussion
4.4.1 Prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalised ol der adults
This study showed that the prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults (23-
35%) is within the range reported by other studies (12-79%) despite using different
malnutrition assessment methods (refer to Table 1-6). The variation in malnutrition
prevalence between the different assessment methods in the present study is smaller
compared to other studies71, 82, 83 where different assessment methods were also
applied within each sample (refer to Table 1-6 and 1-7).
When the same four malnutrition assessment methods used in this present study were
applied in other studies, similarly conducted with hospitalised older adults, variations
in prevalence were observed. Although SGA detected the highest prevalence of
malnutrition (35%) in the present study, it is lower than that reported in all the other
studies using a similar criterion (SGA: 41-79%)71, 93, 94, 113 (refer to Table 1-6 for more
details of the studies). This difference is possibly attributable to the differences in
case-mix and clinical conditions of the patients in the studies. In two studies where
critically or terminally ill were excluded, the prevalence was 41-48%93, 94. This result
is closer to the present study (35%). The study by Kyle et al (2002)71 in 392 medical
and surgical patients aged 60 years and above, reported a malnutrition prevalence of
79%. This is much higher than the results from this present study. They included
surgical patients, and terminally ill patients were not excluded. This difference in
patient profile may have contributed to the increased prevalence reported.
The malnutrition prevalence detected using MNA in the present study (23%) was
comparable to those reported by other studies (19-25%)20, 120, 121 (refer to Table 1-6
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
156
for more details of the studies). In this comparison, both the present study and those in
the literature had similar mean age and clinical diagnoses of the participants. In
addition, the MNA was developed and validated specifically in the elderly population.
4.4.2 Body Mass Index (BMI) cut-offs
Comparisons of malnutrition prevalence using anthropometric measures such as BMI
and CAMA were made more difficult with the different cut-offs and reference norms
used by different studies. Among the studies reviewed (refer to Table 1-6), the study
by Coelho et al118 was the only one conducted among hospitalised older adults that
used the same BMI cut-off (18.5kg/m2) as the present study. They found a 30%
malnutrition prevalence among 197 hospitalised elderly (>60 years) in Brazil. This is
similar to what was shown in the present study (26%).
As previously mentioned in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.2.1.1), the BMI classification
based on the assessment method of chronic energy deficiency (CED)260 adopted by
WHO (Table 2-2) supported the BMI cut-off of 18.5kg/m2. Although most studies
used BMI <20kg/m2 with malnutrition prevalence at 14-34%69, 71, 76 or BMI <23kg/m2
with a much higher prevalence at 52%74, these higher cut-offs were mainly applied in
studies of Caucasian populations and hence the validity of these cut-offs to define
malnutrition in the Asian population is unknown.
There are evidence to support the lower BMI cut-offs for overweight and obesity
among Asians and Singaporeans262, 264 due to the differences in body composition
between ethnic and racial groups. Although it may seem plausible that the BMI cut-
offs for underweight may also be lower based on the leftward shift of the distribution
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
157
curve, this may result in underestimation as only those who are severely malnourished
are identified. This explanation is based on the evidence that if higher body fat was
found in Asian adults with the same BMI as Caucasians264, the lower BMI range may
also indirectly reflect lower lean body mass among Asian adults than Caucasians.
Higher BMI cut-offs have been proposed for identifying underweight or malnutrition
risk in older adults267, 268. The lower malnutrition prevalence using the BMI
assessment (26%) compared to using the SGA (35%) in the present study might have
also suggested a higher cut-off. However, based on the smaller statures of the Asian
population, adopting the higher BMI cut-offs i.e. <20kg/m2 for underweight on the
other hand may potentially overestimate the prevalence of malnutrition (40%) in the
present study. No relevant cut-offs among Asian adults or elderly for
underweight/malnutrition have been suggested in the literature. It is possible that
using different cut-off values for assessing underweight and malnutrition among
Asians and Singaporeans may be necessary.
4.4.3 Estimation of BMI using knee height
Although it has been shown that knee height predicts standing height more closely
than demi-span or armspan359, there are limitations with the use of non-ethnic and
population specific predictive equations. These equations may overestimate stature300,
301 and hence underestimate the BMI. Therefore the selection of an appropriate knee
height equation has important implications on the accuracy of height estimation and
calculated BMI. Since there are no knee height equations available for Singaporeans,
the equation used in the present study was based on Hong Kong Chinese elderly
population253 as they most closely match the study sample population. It is however
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
158
uncertain if the knee height measured in this study over- or under-estimated the BMI
of the study population.
4.4.4 Application of CAMA
There are only three studies that have used CAMA to determine malnutrition among
hospitalised older adults79, 81, 82. Two studies used lower CAMA cut-offs compared to
the present study (men <21.4cm2, women <21.6cm2; 28%). In one of the two studies,
Potter et al (1995) studied 69 patients in the UK admitted from the community
without severe cognitive impairment. The authors used CAMA <16cm2 for men and
<16.9cm2 for women to identify patients with severe wasting malnutrition (prevalence
26%)81. A study by Reeves et al (1996) among 219 geriatric patients in an acute
assessment and rehabilitation unit in Switzerland used CAMA <5th percentile and
malnutrition prevalence of 36% was reported79. Both studies identified patients who
were more severely malnourished based on their lower cut-offs, yet the prevalence
was not lower compared to the present study. On the other hand, a third study by
Neumann et al (2005) on 133 older adults in rehabilitation in Australia used the same
CAMA cut-offs as the present study, and found that 20% were malnourished82. The
mean (+SD) BMI of their older adults was 26(+4.0) kg/m2 compared to 21.1(+4.0)
kg/m2 in the present study. The lower prevalence shown by Neumann et al82 could
possibly be due to the larger frame size and skeletal mass evident in Caucasian adults
compared to Chinese adults261.
Based on the literature reviewed, the study by Neumann et al82 was the only one to
have used CAMA <21.4cm2 for men and <21.6cm2 for women to define malnutrition
among hospitalised older adults. The lower cut-offs used in other studies only
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
159
identified patients who were more severely malnourished81, 300. Therefore higher
CAMA cut-offs were chosen in the present study to also identify those with moderate
muscle wasting (moderately malnourished)82.
4.4.5 Incomplete measurements for nutritional statu s
The MNA and BMI were completed only in 84% of participants in this study, mainly
due to the lack of admission weight measurement (n=43). The prevalence of
malnutrition (defined by SGA) was higher (51%) in those participants without
admission weight (incomplete MNA and BMI) than those with available admission
weight (32%). Lack of admission weight was also significantly associated (p<0.05)
with severity of illness and functional status on admission. These findings were not
unexpected as participants who were more severely ill and had poorer function on
admission would pose difficulties and limitations in their weight measurements.
Other studies which used the MNA and anthropometric measures for defining
malnutrition also reported similar rates of missing data for these parameters. It is
common to have inadequate data for assessment136. Studies using the MNA showed
only 66-87% hospitalised elderly patients completed the full MNA113, 120, 203. A recent
malnutrition study in a hospital in the UK by Stratton et al (2006) showed that weight
could be measured in only 56% of hospitalised elderly (n=150, mean age 85 years) on
admission202. Weight was obtained from either reliable recall or subjective criteria to
complete the nutritional screening using MUST. It was reported that those who could
not be weighed had a greater prevalence of malnutrition risk defined using the MUST
(70% vs 49%)202.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
160
With the identified differences in nutritional status and clinical characteristics
associated with the study participants without admission weight measurement, the
exclusion of those with incomplete MNA and BMI assessments would likely
contribute to an underestimation of the prevalence of malnutrition. This was reflected
with the lower prevalence rates shown by the MNA (23%) and BMI (24%) in the
study. Both the MNA and BMI involve weight measurements and there are
difficulties associated with obtaining them in an acute care setting. Therefore if these
assessment methods are to be used and weight measurements are not available,
alternative approaches should be considered to assess the nutritional status of these
those who cannot be weighed. One option may be to modify the BMI-related question
in the MNA to accommodate the scoring of weight unavailability. Another
consideration would be to assign similar risk to patients who could not have their
admission weight taken as those who report weight loss.
4.4.6 Characteristics associated with malnutrition
The sociodemographic,appetite, chewing, swallowing, and clinical characteristics
associated with the malnourished participants in the present study were similar to
those that were commonly reported in other studies31, 33, 36, 44, 49 (summarised in Table
1-2). The present study confirms that the common risk factors associated with
malnutrition in the older adults as reported in other studies are also consistent with
the Singapore hospitalised older adults.
A few of these characteristics identified in the present study are particularly important
as their associations with malnutrition were evident regardless of the assessment
method used (summary Table 4-6). Poor appetite and swallowing impairment are
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
161
important factors influencing oral intake, choice of food and food quality, which have
been shown to influence nutritional status in hospitalised older adults31, 33. Clinical
conditions such as cognitive impairment, dementia and depression are commonly
known to be associated with malnutrition in the elderly31, 36, 37. The association
between poor functional status and poor nutritional status in the older adults is
frequently reported40, 43, 44, 164, although it is not clear whether poor functional status
precedes the decline in nutritional status or vice versa.
Although the other characteristics identified in the present study such as old age,
institutionalised care prior to admission, and poor dentition may not be consistently
evident across the different malnutrition assessment methods, it does not imply that
they are unimportant. Their associations with malnutrition have also been reported
(Table 1-2). The present study might not have identified additional or new patient
characteristics associated with poor nutritional status. Nevertheless, it has added new
data and knowledge to characterising the malnourished older adults on admission to a
Singapore acute care hospital. With a better profiling of these malnourished
hospitalised older adults on admission, closer attention and monitoring could be
provided to those who present with high risks i.e. the identified characteristics, even
before admission to hospital.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
162
4.5 Conclusion
There was a high prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalised older adults in a
Singapore acute care hospital, with a quarter to a third of the older adults being
malnourished on admission. Results from this study were comparable to that reported
in other developed countries. As in other studies, the prevalence varied with the
malnutrition assessment methods used, with the SGA returning the highest
malnutrition prevalence at 35% and the MNA returning the lowest at 23%.
Among the four malnutrition assessment methods used in the present study, the
completion rates for the MNA and BMI were the lowest (84%) since both
assessments require admission weight that are often difficult to measure. About half
of those without admission weight were malnourished (when defined by the SGA),
highlighting that underestimation of malnutrition prevalence was likely to occur when
the MNA or BMI were used. In comparison, CAMA involves mainly arm
measurements which are relatively easier (completion rate 99%) to obtain than weight
and could be considered as an alternative assessment to the MNA and BMI. Although
the SGA includes questions on weight loss, it could still be completed even if weight
measurements were not available as no specific scoring was assigned to the weight
information as compared to the MNA questions. Therefore this study showed that the
SGA and CAMA were more likely to be used easily and accurately with a higher
completion rate among hospitalised older adults.
A range of patient characteristics were identified to be associated with malnutrition on
admission. Swallowing impairment, poor appetite, the need for modified textured
diets, dementia and depression occurred more frequently in the malnourished
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
163
participants. Significantly lower (p<0.05) pre-morbid and admission functional status,
cognitive function and serum albumin were also found among the malnourished
participants. It is important to assess and closely monitor patients presenting with
these characteristics prior to and upon hospital admission as they are possibly more
prone to developing malnutrition. Some of these clinical characteristics could be
identified and addressed at the community level for prevention and early detection of
malnutrition amongst those at higher risk. It would be less beneficial and effective if
these patients are only identified upon admission to the hospital.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
164
5 Nutritional status and clinical outcomes
5.1 Introduction and aims
The consequences of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults are clinically important,
extensive and had been well-documented in many Western countries (discussed in
section 1.4). From the literature reviewed, it was shown that there is limited research
studying the predictive ability of malnutrition (independent of covariates such as
cognition, functional status, severity of disease, co-morbidities) on clinical outcomes.
Studies on the impact of malnutrition among hospitalised elderly patients in
Singapore are also very limited.
There is no “gold standard” for defining nutritional status due to the lack of a
universally accepted clinical assessment method for diagnosis of malnutrition. This
has resulted in a wide variation of malnutrition prevalence reported in other studies
(discussed in section 1.5), as well as in this study (refer to section 4.3). Due to the
impact of malnutrition on adverse clinical outcomes, the malnutrition assessment
methods can be validated against the clinical outcomes. Therefore an appropriate
malnutrition assessment method for the hospitalised older adults is one that can best
detect the associations between nutritional status and clinical outcomes.
This chapter therefore aims to describe the predictive association of nutritional status
(defined by SGA, MNA, BMI and CAMA) with five clinical outcomes (length of
stay, discharge to higher level care, readmission at 3-months, mortality and MBI at 6-
months) before and after adjustment for covariates. It will also compare the predictive
validities of nutritional status, defined by the four nutritional assessment tools and
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
165
indices, against the clinical outcomes. The malnutrition assessment method with the
best predictive ability would be identified and be used as the reference standard for
assessing nutritional status and for validation of the nutritional screening tools in
Chapter 6. This chapter will answer the third research question, “What are the
predictive abilities of the four malnutrition assessment methods, and which is most
suitable for use in hospitalised older adults?”
5.2 Methods
First, univariate analyses of the association between each of the clinical outcomes and
the nutritional status (using SGA, MNA, BMI, and CAMA) were performed. This was
followed by a multivariate analysis with adjustment for nine covariates (age, gender,
race, dementia, depression, number of prescribed drugs, severity of illness, Charlson
Comorbidity Index and admission MBI) previously described in Chapter 2 (section
2.2.3). Similar analyses of the clinical outcomes were also applied to participants with
and without admission weight. The outcome LOS was analysed both as a continuous
(median LOS) and categorical variable (LOS </>11days) in the univariate analysis.
The LOS was dichotomised into LOS >11days and LOS<11days, based on the
average LOS of the patients from the GRM unit.
Next, the validity of the each of the four malnutrition assessment methods was
evaluated against the clinical outcomes. ROC curve analysis of the probabilities from
each set of the multivariate regression models were performed against each clinical
outcome (except for 6-month MBI as it is a continuous outcome variable). The area
under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were compared to
determine the predictive validity of the four malnutrition assessment methods.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
166
The multivariate associations for each of the malnutrition assessment method with
clinical outcomes were compared in addition to their predictive validity. The method
which showed the best predictive ability would be selected as the reference standard
for classifying nutritional status in the study population.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Univariate relationships between nutritional status and
clinical outcomes
The univariate relationships between nutritional status and clinical outcomes are
presented in Table 5-1.
• Length of stay (LOS)
The median LOS was longer among the SGA- and BMI-defined malnourished than
well-nourished participants (11 vs 8 days, p<0.05). A significantly higher proportion
of SGA-defined malnourished participants had LOS > 11days (55% vs 38%, OR 1.94,
95% CI [1.18-3.20], p<0.05).
• Discharge to higher level care
Discharge to higher level care was not associated with malnutrition, regardless of
assessment method used.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
167
• Readmission at 3-months
Readmission rates at 3-months were significantly higher in the SGA- and MNA-
defined malnourished groups than in the well-nourished groups (48-49% vs 28-31%,
OR 2.15-2.42, 95% CI [1.12-4.15], p<0.05).
• Mortality at 6-months
All malnourished groups, except the BMI-defined group, had 2.5-3.5 times higher
mortality rates at 6-months (15-22% vs 6-8%, OR 2.97-4.30, 95% CI [1.11-9.35],
p<0.05) than the well-nourished groups. Although the association of BMI-defined
malnutrition with mortality at 6-months did not reach statistically significance
(p=0.13, p>0.05), the effect size (OR 2.18, 95% CI [0.80-5.93]) was clinically
significant.
• Modified Barthel Index at 6-months
Modified Barthel Index (MBI) at 6-months was significantly lower in the
malnourished than well-nourished groups, across all assessment methods of
malnutrition (49-76 vs 75-80, Β -[33.95-15.13], 95% CI [-42.37, -6.66], p<0.05).
Table 5-2 summarises the univariate relationships between nutritional status and
clinical outcomes. SGA-defined malnutrition, in comparison with other malnutrition
assessment methods, was significantly associated with the greatest number of clinical
outcomes (LOS >11 days, readmission at 3-months, mortality at 6-months, and MBI
at 6-months). This was followed by MNA-defined malnutrition which was similarly
associated with readmission at 3-months, and both mortality and MBI at 6-months.
However, MNA was not associated with LOS >11 days, unlike SGA. BMI-defined
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
168
malnutrition achieved clinically significant association with three outcomes (LOS >11
days, mortality and MBI at 6-months), however only 6-month MBI was statistically
significant (p<0.05). CAMA-defined malnutrition also achieved clinically significant
association with three outcomes (3-month readmission, 6-month mortality and MBI),
with only mortality and MBI at 6-months being statistically significant (p<0.05).
Overall, as shown in Table 5-2, all the four malnutrition assessment methods were
associated with 6-month mortality (OR 2.18-4.30, 95% CI [0.80-9.35]) and 6-month
MBI (Β-[33.95-15.13], 95% CI [-42.37, -6.66], p<0.05). None of the malnutrition
assessment methods were significantly associated (p>0.05) with discharge to higher
level care.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
169
Table 5-1: Clinical outcomes of study participants (n=281) aged >60 years according to nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods
n SGA (n=281) MNA (n=236) BMI (n=236) CAMA (n=278) Outcomes Well-nourished
(n=184) Malnourished
(n=97) Well-nourished
(n=182) Malnourished
(n=54) Well-nourished
(n=179) Malnourished
(n=57) Well-nourished
(n=199) Malnourished
(n=79) LOS , days, mean+SD Median (Range) ΒΒΒΒ(95% CI)/p value† >/= 11 days^ <11 days OR(95% CI)/p value ‡
280 10.8+7.1 8(2-41)
2.9(1.0-4.8) 70(38) 113(62)
1.94(1.18-3.20)
13.7+8.6 11(3-50)*
0.03 53(55)* 44(45) 0.009
10.7+6.5 9(2-40)
1.9(-0.1-3.9) 74(41) 108(59)
1.17(0.63-2.16)
13.1+9.2 10(3-50)
0.068 24(44) 30(56) 0.62
10.2+6.0 8(2-40)
4.3(2.1-6.4) 68(38) 111(62)
1.81(0.99-3.31)
14.4+9.7 11(3-50)*
<0.001 30(53) 27(47) 0.051
11.5+7.7 9(2-42)
1.0(-1.0-3.1) 82(41) 117(59)
1.39(0.82-2.35)
12.5+7.9 10(3-50)
0.319 39(49) 40(51) 0.216
Discharge higher level care Yes No OR(95% CI)/p value ‡
277 55(30) 126(70)
0.85(0.49-1.48)
26(27) 70(73) 0.565
51(28) 130(72)
0.73(0.36-1.49)
12(22) 42(78) 0.386
46(26) 132(74)
1.22(0.63-2.36)
17(30) 40(70) 0.555
55(28) 144(72)
1.21(0.68-2.15)
24(32) 52(68) 0.518
3-month Readmission Yes No OR(95% CI)/p value ‡
261 50(28) 127(72)
2.42(1.41-4.15)
41(49)* 43(51) 0.001
51(29) 124(71)
2.15(1.12-4.12)
23(47)* 26(53) 0.021
57(33) 117(69)
1.06(0.54-2.06)
17(34) 33(66) 0.869
62(32) 129(68)
1.46(0.82-2.58)
28(41) 40(59) 0.196
6-month Mortality Yes No OR(95% CI)/p value ‡
279 11(6)
171(94) 4.30(1.97-9.35)
21(22)* 76(78) <0.001
10(6)
171(94) 2.97(1.11-7.96)
8(15)* 46(85) 0.033
11(6)
168(94) 2.18(0.80-5.93)
7(12) 49(88) 0.126
15(8)
183(92) 3.34(1.58-7.10)
17(22)* 62(78) 0.001
6-month MBI, mean+SD ΒΒΒΒ(95% CI)/p value†
246 75.2+29.7 -15.1(-23.6,-6.7)
60.0+34.3* 0.001
80.3+25.9 -33.6(-42.4, -25.5)
48.8+33.1* <0.001
77.5+28.1 -17.1(-26.6,-7.6)
60.4+34.1* <0.001
75.5+29.0 -19.1(-28.1,-10.2)
56.3+36.0* <0.001
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: Modified Barthel Index; Β(unstandardised coefficient); OR(CI): Odds Ratio (Confidence Interval) Results are expressed as n(%) ^LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit †‡ Comparisons between well-nourished and malnourished participants within each malnutrition assessment method performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡).(reference group: well-nourished participants) * Significantly different between the well-nourished and malnourished participants within each malnutrition assessment method, p<0.05 SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; CAMA: Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
170
Table 5-2: Summary of univariate relationships between clinical outcomes and nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods (expressed in odds ratio, 95% confidence interval).
Length of Stay (LOS) >11 days^
Discharge Higher Level Care
3-month Readmission
6-month Mortality
6-month MBI #
n=280 n=277 n=261 n=279 n=246 SGA –Malnourished
1.94 (1.18-3.20)
p=0.009
NS 2.42 (1.41-4.15)
p=0.001
4.30 (1.97-9.35)
p<0.001
-15.13 (-23.59, -6.66)
p=0.001
*n=236 n=235 n=224 n=235 n=216 MNA – Malnourished
NS NS 2.15 (1.12-4.12)
p=0.021
2.97 (1.11-7.96)
p=0.033
-33.95 (-42.37,-25.53)
p<0.001
BMI – Malnourished
NS
NS NS NS -17.09 (-26.56,-7.62)
p<0.001 n=278 n=275 n=259 n=277 n=244 CAMA – Malnourished
NS NS NS
3.34 (1.58-7.10)
p=0.001
-19.14 (-28.10,-10.19)
p<0.001 Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; NS= Not statistically and clinically significant Results from logistic regression expressed as odds ratio (95% confidence interval) with relevant p values in italics. ^LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit
# Results from linear regression expressed as Β (95% confidence interval) with relevant p values in italics. *The n values for MNA and BMI are the same based on the number of participants for whom weight/height was available.
Bold = statistically significant, p<0.05.
Refer to Table 5-1 for more details.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
171
5.3.2 Multivariate relationships between nutritiona l status and
clinical outcomes
When the associations between nutritional status and clinical outcomes were further
adjusted for the nine covariates (age, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness,
Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI) in
multivariate logistic and linear regressions (refer to Appendix Table A-9 to Table A-
28 for detailed analyses), the associations between nutritional status and clinical
outcomes were mainly attenuated or became insignificant. Table 5-3 summarises the
multivariate relationships between nutritional status and clinical outcomes.
SGA-determined malnutrition remained statistically significant and predictive of LOS
>11days (OR 2.45, 95% CI [1.27-4.71], p<0.05 in Table 5-3) after adjustment for the
whole range of covariates. The relationship between nutritional status (defined by all
the assessment methods) and 6-month mortality failed to remain statistically
significant in the multivariate model.
Most of the univariate associations between 6-month MBI and nutritional status
(SGA, BMI, CAMA) became insignificant after adjustment for covariates. Only
MNA-defined malnutrition remained statistically significant (Β -14.02, 95% CI [-
21.37, -6.67], p<0.05 in Table 5-3) in its association with 6-month MBI even though
its effect was largely attenuated with adjustment (Β -33.95, 95% CI [-42.37,-25.53],
p<0.05, without adjustment in Table 5-2).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
172
Table 5-3: Summary of multivariate∞ relationships between clinical outcomes and nutritional status as assessed by the four different malnutrition assessment methods (expressed in odds ratio, 95% confidence interval)
Length of Stay (LOS) >11 days^
Discharge Higher
Level Care
3-month Readmission
6-month Mortality
6-month MBI #
Model sample, n 224 223 222 224 206 2.45
(1.27-4.71) p=0.007
NS NS SGA –Malnourished +additional analysis using full sample for available for SGA
n=267 2.12*
(1.17-3.83) p=0.013
NS
n=260 1.90*
(1.05-3.42) p=0.034
n=266 3.04*
(1.28-7.18) p=0.011
NS
MNA – Malnourished
NS NS NS NS -14.02 (-21.37,-6.67)
p<0.001
BMI – Malnourished
NS NS NS NS NS
NS CAMA – Malnourished +additional analysis using full sample for available for CAMA
NS NS NS
n=264 2.48*
(1.05-5.84) p=0.038
NS
Abbreviations: SGA: subjective global assessment; MNA: mini-nutritional assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; NS= Not statistically and clinically significant ∞∞∞∞All models are adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI. Results from multivariate logistic regression expressed as odds ratio (95% confidence interval) with relevant p values in italics.; Bold = Statistically significant, p<0.05; Refer to Appendix Tables A-9 to A-28 for details. ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit # Results from multiple linear regression expressed as Β (95% confidence interval) with relevant p values in italic. + The model samples in the multivariate analyses are based on participants with weight/height data as a standard sample is applied for comparative regression analysis of the outcomes. * Significant associations between nutritional status and clinical outcomes from additional multivariate analysis performed using the full sample.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
173
5.3.3 Comparison of participants with and without a dmission
weight and clinical outcomes
In the previous chapter (Table 4-1), comparisons of the sociodemographic, clinical
characteristics, and nutritional status were made between the participants with and without
admission weight. In this section, the clinical outcomes will be compared and presented in
Table 5-4.
Participants without admission weight recorded presented with poorer clinical outcomes
compared to those with admission weight recorded. At the univariate analyses (refer to Table
5-4), participants without admission weight had significantly longer LOS (Β 3.67, 95% CI
[1.18-6.16], p<0.05), higher 6-month mortality (OR 5.82, 95% CI [2.62-12.94], p<0.05), and
6-month lower MBI (Β-25.45, 95% CI [-37.46,-13.43], p<0.05).
After adjustment for the covariates, lack of admission weight remained predictive of 6-month
mortality (OR 4.99, 95% CI [1.86-13.40], p<0.05 in Table 5-4). However, the association
between the lack of admission weight and LOS, and 6-month MBI became statistically
insignificant in the multiple linear regression analyses.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
174
Table 5-4: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without admission weight measurements
Outcomes N (n)#
Admission weight available
(n=238)
Admission weight not available (n=43)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞∞∞∞ Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) >/= 11 days^ <11 days
281 (267)
11.2+7.3 9 (2-50) 99(42) 138(58)
14.9+9.4 12(2-42) 24(56) 19(44)
3.67+ 1.76
1.18-6.16 0.92-3.39
0.004† 0.09
NR 1.27
NR
0.55-2.93
0.886† 0.578
Discharge higher level care Yes No
277 (264)
64(27) 172(73)
17(42) 24(58)
1.90
0.96-3.77
0.065
0.69
0.30-1.60
0.385
3-month Readmission Yes No
272 (259)
82(35) 152(65)
17(45) 21(55)
1.50
0.75-3.00
0.251
1.06
0.45-2.49
0.898
6-month Mortality Yes No
278 (265)
18(8)
217(92)
14(33) 29(67)
5.82*
2.62-12.94
<0.001
4.99*
1.86-13.40
0.001
6-month MBI, mean+SD
246 (234)
73.5+30.3
48.0+34.7
-25.45+ -37.46, -13.43
<0.001†
NR
NR
0.976†
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: Modified Barthel Index; NR: Not relevant Results are expressed as n(%) # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ∞∞∞∞Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit †‡ Comparisons between participants with and without admission weight, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants with admission weight) * Participants without admission weight significantly associated with 6-month mortality with and without adjustment of covariates, p<0.05 + Β(unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants without admission weight had significantly longer LOS and lower 6-month MBI score
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
175
5.3.4 Predictive power of nutritional assessment to ols and indices
on clinical outcomes
The results from the multivariate regression models in section 5.3.2 only reflected the
predictive associations of nutritional status with clinical outcomes. The regression
models are unable to determine the predictive validity of the nutritional assessment
tools and indices in identifying clinical outcomes. Therefore the ROC curve analysis
of the multivariate regression model for each malnutrition assessment method was
performed against the clinical outcomes.
Table 5-5 shows the summary of the AUC for each of the malnutrition assessment
methods against the clinical outcomes (refer to Appendix: Tables A-33 to A-36 for
full details of the ROC curve analysis). The SGA model showed the highest AUC for
LOS >11 days (0.75) in comparison to the other malnutrition models. Both MNA and
SGA models showed the highest AUC for 3-month readmission at (0.67) and 6-month
mortality (0.73). All four malnutrition models showed the same AUC for discharge to
higher level care (0.72). Overall, SGA showed the highest average AUC (0.72) across
all clinical outcomes.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
176
Table 5-5: Summary of the AUC from ROC curve analysis for each malnutrition assessment method against the clinical outcomes
Length of Stay (LOS) >11 days^
n=224
Discharge Higher
Level Care n=223
3-month Readmission
n=222
6-month Mortality
n=224
Average AUC
SGA –Model
0.75
0.72
0.67
0.73
0.72
MNA – Model
0.72
0.72
0.67
0.73
0.71
BMI – Model
0.73
0.72
0.66
0.72
0.71
CAMA –Model
0.72
0.72
0.66
0.68
0.70
Abbreviations: AUC: area under the curve; ROC: Receiver Operating Characteristic; SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area
Results are expressed as AUC for each nutrition models against the respective clinical outcomes (excluding 6-month MBI as it is a continuous outcome variable and could not be applied in ROC curve analysis)
^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit
Bold = Highest AUC among the nutrition models for each outcome;
∞∞∞∞All multivariate malnutrition models include age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI as covariates. Details of the ROC curve analysis of each malnutrition model against the clinical outcomes are shown in Appendix Tables A-33 to A-36.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
177
5.4 Discussion
5.4.1 Nutritional status and clinical outcomes
Overall, the clinical outcomes (LOS >11 days, 3-month readmission, 6-month
mortality and 6-month MBI) of the malnourished participants were poorer
compared to the well-nourished participants across the four assessment methods of
malnutrition in this study (refer to Table 5-1). Prevalence of increased LOS (>11
days) was 45% higher, 3-month readmission rates were up to 75% higher, 6-month
mortality rates were up to 3.5 times higher, and 6-month functional status (MBI
score) was up to 40% lower, among the malnourished participants. These
associations of malnutrition with adverse clinical outcomes shown here were
comparable with those reported in other studies. The latter studies showed up to
three times higher in-hospital to 1 year mortality rates87, 94, 99, 110, 120, 123, 157, 158, up
to 50% longer LOS82, 83, 111, 116, 119, 120, 136, 139, up to three times poorer functional
status82, 94, 157, and two times higher readmission rates85 in malnourished compared
to the well-nourished patients.
The present study did not show the association of malnutrition with discharge to
higher level of care. This is in contrast to results shown by Covinsky et al (1999)94
(n=369, age>70 years, US) and Neumann et al (2005)82 (n=133, age>65years,
Australia) where malnourished older adults (defined by SGA rating C and MNA
score<24, respectively) in hospital and rehabilitation settings respectively, were
more likely to be discharged to higher level care (OR 3.22, 95% CI [1.05-9.87]
and OR 2.29, 95% CI [1.09-4.80], respectively). It is possible that the differences
in functional status of the patients on admission may have an influence on the
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
178
impact of malnutrition on patients’ discharge destination. However, it was shown
that even with94 or without82 adjustment for admission functional status in both
studies, the association between malnutrition and discharge destination remained.
Although discharge destination could be an indirect measure for functional
outcome, it could also be a service-based outcome. It is possible that differences in
care settings and healthcare systems play a role in explaining this difference in
results. The healthcare system in Singapore encourages the older adults to be cared
for in the community than in long-term care institutions. Therefore hospitalised
older adults, who require a higher level of care after discharge, need not
necessarily be discharged to another institutionalised care facilities i.e. nursing
home.
Many of the significant associations between nutritional status and clinical
outcomes evident at the univariate level failed to remain significant after
adjustment for the comprehensive range of covariates in the present study. Only
the association between SGA-defined malnutrition and LOS >11 days (OR 2.45,
95% CI [1.27-4.71], p<0.05), and MNA-defined malnutrition and 6-month MBI
(Β -14.02, 95% CI [-21.37, -6.67], p<0.05) remained statistically significant in the
multivariate analysis. In fact, most of the studies which have reported significant
associations between malnutrition and poor clinical outcomes were analysed only
at the univariate level, and hence they may have overestimated the predictive
associations between nutrition status and clinical outcomes (refer section 1.6,
Table 1-10).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
179
There were only a few studies which had adjusted for covariates when establishing
the relationship between nutritional status and clinical outcomes in the hospitalised
older adults61, 62, 74, 79, 87, 94, 151, 157, 158 (refer to section 1.6, Table 1-11). The
number of covariates included in most of these studies ranged from 2 to 6, and
only one study94 included similar number of covariates (nine covariates) as the
present study. A few of these studies also included functional status on admission
as one of the covariates in their multivariate analysis79, 94, 151, 157, 158, just like the
present study. After adjustment for the various covariates in these studies,
malnutrition (assessed using different assessment methods i.e. SGA, BMI, serum
albumin, CAMA) remained significantly associated with mortality62, 74, 79, 94, 157, 158,
hospital readmission151, and functional status94. These results contrasted with what
the present study has shown where the malnutrition associations with 6-month
mortality and 3-month readmission were shown to be insignificant after
adjustment and only LOS>11days remained significant (OR 2.45, 95% CI [1.27-
4.71], p<0.05).
Some plausible explanations for the associations of malnutrition with clinical
outcomes to remain despite the adjustment of covariates in the other studies could
be the use of fewer62, 74 and different covariates151, 157, 158 in these study analyses
compared to the present study. Most of the previous studies only included some,
but not all the important covariates like comorbidities, functional status and
cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is possible that the associations between
malnutrition and clinical outcomes reported in these studies were still an
overestimation. In addition, the different assessment methods of malnutrition e.g.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
180
serum albumin used in other studies62, 151, 157 and the different follow-up period62,
74, 79, 94, 157 for outcomes may also limit like-for-like data comparison.
Covinsky et al’s (1999)94 study was the only one conducted in hospitalised older
adults, using a similar number and type of covariates (comorbidity, disease
severity, cognitive and functional status) and malnutrition assessment method
(SGA) as the present study. In their study of 369 hospitalised older adults aged
>70 years in the US (median LOS not reported), malnutrition on admission,
particularly severe malnutrition, was predictive of (i) 90-day and 12-month
mortality (OR 3.26, 95% CI [1.52-6.96], and OR 2.83, 95% CI [1.47-5.45]), (ii)
dependence in at least 1 ADL at 3-month (OR 2.81, 95% CI [1.06-7.46]), and (iii)
discharge to nursing home at 1 year (OR 3.22, 95% CI [1.05-9.87]). The main
difference between the present study and that conducted by Covinsky at al94 was
that the latter study showed significant associations between nutritional status and
outcomes only among the severely malnourished patients. In the present study the
moderately and severely malnourished (SGA B and C) participants were combined
for analysis as the severely malnourished group (n=17) was relatively small to be
analysed separately.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
181
5.4.2 Different sample size and characteristics in univariate and
multivariate analyses
For comparison of the relationships across the various malnutrition assessment
methods and clinical outcomes in this study, a uniform sample (n=206-224,
depending on the outcome variable) which only included participants with
complete data for all the variables in the regression model, was selected in the
multivariate analysis. As there were more missing data for BMI and MNA
assessments, a considerable number of study participants included in the SGA and
CAMA univariate analyses (n=244-280) were excluded from the comparative
multivariate analyses (n=206-224).
The smaller sample used in the multivariate analysis for SGA- and CAMA-
defined malnutrition and clinical outcomes could possibly reduce the power of the
study and increase the risk of type two error (false negative results). Therefore it is
likely that the strong associations of nutritional status with clinical outcomes
shown at the univariate level in the present study have been attenuated to an
insignificant level at the multivariate analysis with the smaller sample. This might
have contributed to the present study reporting that SGA-defined malnutrition
does not have a predictive ability on clinical outcome which was otherwise shown
by Covinsky et al (1999)94. Likewise, the small sample size might have diminished
the potential impact of CAMA-defined malnutrition on 6-month mortality and
other clinical outcomes previously shown in both hospital and community older
adults79, 229, 277, 287.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
182
Besides the possible risk for type two error with the smaller sample, the
participants’ characteristics of the smaller sample used in the multivariate analyses
were slightly different from the full sample used in the univariate analyses for the
SGA and CAMA. Participants in the full sample had significantly poorer
functional status on admission (mean MBI 59.3+28.1 vs 64.7+25.0, p<0.05), and
were slightly more malnourished (35% vs 32%, p>0.05). Other characteristics
such as age, gender, race, depression, dementia, severity of illness, and
comorbidities were similar in both samples (p>0.05). With the full sample having
poorer functional status on admission and relatively more malnourished, it is likely
that the effect size for the association between nutritional status and clinical
outcomes may have been greater if this sample was applied in the multivariate
analyses. It is possible that any association of nutritional status with clinical
outcomes may be unveiled with the full sample.
To confirm if the above explanations are valid, multivariate analysis with the full
sample (from the univariate analysis) for the SGA against all the clinical outcomes
was performed. When these analyses with the full sample were done (refer to
Table 5-3 and Appendix Tables A-29 to A-32), the SGA was shown to be
significantly associated with LOS >11days (n=267, OR 2.12, 95% CI [1.17-3.83],
p<0.05), readmission at 3-month (n=260, OR 1.90, 95% CI [1.05-3.42], p<0.05)
and mortality at 6-month (n=266, OR 3.04, 95% CI [1.28-7.18], p<0.05).
Compared to the original analysis based on the smaller sample, 3-month
readmission (n=222, OR 1.49, 95% CI [0.78-2.84], p=0.23) and 6-month mortality
(n=224, OR 2.36, 95% CI [0.80-7.01], p=0.12) became significantly associated
with malnutrition (by SGA) and showed a greater effect size. The predictive
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
183
association of the SGA with mortality shown in this new analysis is now
consistent with Covinsky et al94.
Likewise, when the same sample from the univariate analysis for CAMA was
included in the multivariate analysis (refer to Table 5-3 and Appendix Tables A-31
to A-32), CAMA was shown to be significantly associated with 6-month mortality
(n=264, OR 2.48, 95% CI [1.05-5.84], p<0.05) compared to the original analysis
(n=224, OR 1.82, 95% CI [0.60-5.51], P=0.29). Most of the previous studies
which showed the significant association between low CAMA levels and
increased mortality were conducted mainly among the elderly in the community229,
277, 287. There was only one study by Muhlethaler et al 373 (n=219, age>65years)
which demonstrated the predictive ability of CAMA on long-term mortality at 4.5
years (OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.3-2.6]) among hospitalised geriatric patients in
Switzerland. The association of CAMA-defined malnutrition with short-term
mortality at 6-months was similarly demonstrated in the present study (OR 2.48,
95% CI [1.05-5.84], p<0.05) with this new analysis.
These additional (post-hoc) analyses revealed important results from the present
study. The results strengthened the ability of the SGA as a significant predictor of
clinical outcomes, beyond its only association with LOS (in the original analyses).
These findings demonstrated the independent and significant associations between
nutritional status and clinical outcomes regardless of the patients’ clinical and
medical conditions.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
184
5.4.3 Nutritional status and functional outcome
Nutritional status was strongly associated with functional status at 6-month across
all assessment methods of malnutrition in the present study (unadjusted Β -[33.95-
15.13], 95% CI [-42.37, -6.66], p<0.05). The MNA-defined malnutrition was the
only one which remained significant after adjustment for covariates (adjusted Β -
14.02, 95% CI [-21.37, -6.67], p<0.05). The association between poor functional
and nutritional status with the elderly has been shown in several studies and in
different settings such as the community146, 147, rehabilitation82 and hospitals94, 157.
Two of the studies were cross sectional studies, one of which was conducted in the
community in the US147 (n=3053, >65 years) and one in a Swedish hospital157
(n=337, mean age 81 years). BMI (<15th percentile, <20 or <22 kg/m2) was used
as the main nutritional status indicator in both of these studies. Both showed a
significant association between lower BMI and a poorer functional status in the
univariate analysis. This association was maintained in the multivariate analysis in
the US study by Galanos et al (1994)147, but not in the Swedish study by Flodin et
al (2000)157. A strong association (univariate) between poor nutritional and poor
functional status on admission was shown in the present study (refer to Table 4-5)
as was reported in the other cross sectional studies147, 157.
The other three studies were longitudinal studies. In the first study, Bannerman et
al (2002)146 showed that in a sample of 1272 healthy community-dwelling
Australian older adults (mean age 77.5+5.5 years), a lower BMI (<20 kg/m2,
which indicated underweight) reduced the risk of self-reported limited physical
function at 2-years follow-up with adjustment for ten covariates (OR 0.31, 95% CI
[0.15-0.67]). This protective effect of a lower BMI on functional status at 2-years
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
185
shown by Bannerman et al contrasted with the results in the present study that a
lower BMI (<18.5 kg/m2) was associated with poorer functional status at 6-months
post discharge (unadjusted Β-17.09, 95% CI [-25.56,-7.62], p<0.05). This
difference may be explained firstly by the fact that different BMI cut-offs were
used in the studies. Secondly, the assessment methods of functional limitations
used in both studies were different. The physical function assessment in the
Bannerman et al study included fewer components than that in the MBI used in the
present study. Thirdly, the participants in the comparative study consisted of
younger and healthier community-dwelling older adults. All these factors could
have influenced the association between nutritional and functional status.
A second Australian study with 133 elderly patients (>65 years) of a rehabilitation
hospital found poor nutritional status as defined by the MNA (total score <24),
BMI (<22 kg/m2) and CAMA (<21.4 cm2 for male; <21.6 cm2 for female) was
significantly associated with poorer functional status (defined by MBI through
phone interview) at 90 days, after adjusting for admission MBI82. These results
were consistent with the present study where the MNA-defined malnutrition (total
score <17) was significantly associated with lower 6-month MBI after adjustment
for covariates (Β -14.02, 95% CI [-21.37,-6.67], p<0.05). However the main
difference between the two studies was the number of covariates used in the
analysis, with Neumann et al82 using only one covariate (admission MBI) as
compared to the present where nine covariates were applied including admission
MBI. This suggests that the association between nutritional and functional status
shown in the present study is less likely to be influenced by non nutrition-related
factors.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
186
The third study, by Covinsky et al (1999)94 in hospitalised elderly >70 years in the
US (n=369) showed in the multivariate analysis that severely malnourished
patients on admission (defined by SGA rating C) were more likely to be dependent
in at least one ADL 90 days after discharge (OR 2.81, 95% CI [1.06-7.46]). Unlike
Covinsky et al’s94, the strong univariate association between poor functional
outcome at 6 -months and poor nutritional status (defined by SGA rating B+C) at
baseline failed to hold in the present study after the baseline functional status and
other covariates were adjusted for. The MNA-defined malnutrition was the only
nutritional assessment tool that remained significantly associated with 6-month
MBI after adjustment for covariates (Β -14.02, 95% CI [-21.37,-6.67], p<0.05).
The different results shown in the present study and Covinsky et al94 could be
attributed to the use of different measurement tools for functional (admission and
follow-up) and nutritional status. In addition, Covinsky et al94 separated the
moderately and severely malnourished patients in their study for analysis, whereas
both moderately and severely malnourished participants were analysed as a group
in the present study. This could further explain the difference in the relationship
between nutritional status and functional outcome between the studies, as the
significant association was only shown among those who were severely
malnourished (even after adjustment for covariates) in the study by Covinsky et
al94.
The relationship between nutritional status and functional outcomes is complex
and reciprocal94. A strong association between poor nutritional status and poor
admission functional status, as well as between poor nutrition status and functional
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
187
outcomes after discharge, have been shown here and in the other cross sectional
studies147, 157. However, it appears in the present study that the baseline functional
status has a stronger influence on the functional outcome than baseline nutritional
status since the association with the latter failed to hold (for most of the
malnutrition assessment methods) or was attenuated after admission functional
status was adjusted for. Therefore, the size and significance of association between
nutritional status and functional outcomes demonstrated in the present study may
have been smaller compared to other studies82, 146, 147 as admission functional
status (together with many other covariates) was adjusted for in the multivariate
analysis. From the results here, only the MNA-defined malnutrition remained
statistically significant in its impact on functional status at 6-months (adjusted Β-
14.02, 95% CI [-21.37, -6.67], p<0.05). This relationship shown between the
MNA and functional status at 6-month is possibly influenced by the questions
relating to the assessment of functional status in the MNA tool.
5.4.4 BMI and clinical outcomes
Compared to the other malnutrition assessment methods evaluated in this study,
BMI showed the poorest results. At the univariate analysis (refer to Table 5-2),
BMI-defined malnutrition was significantly associated with only 6-month MBI (Β
-17.09, 95% CI [-26.56, -7.62], p<0.05). BMI was the only malnutrition
assessment method that did not demonstrate any statistical significant relationship
with all the clinical outcomes in the multivariate analysis (refer to Table 5-3).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
188
The poor predictive performance of the BMI shown in the present study contrasted
with that shown by other studies74, 82, 146, 266. Due to the lack of weight and height
measurement in 16% of the participants, a smaller sample of the BMI data was
available for the regression analysis. This could have affected the power of the
sample size and potentially caused a type two error. Similarly for the MNA
analysis, a type two error could also have occurred due to the reduced sample size
from missing BMI data. Clinically, the application of the MNA or BMI may
potentially underestimate the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes if no
alternative measurements are used to assess those whose admission weight could
not be taken.
5.4.5 Lack of admission weight measurement and clin ical
outcomes
Participants without weight taken on admission were shown to be at higher risk of
6-month mortality (adjusted OR 4.99, 95% CI [1.86-13.40], p<0.05 in Table 5-4).
This risk was greater compared to that associated with malnourished participants
(defined by SGA) on admission (adjusted OR 3.04, 95% CI [1.28-7.18], p<0.05 in
Table 5-3). This greater impact on adverse clinical outcomes shown in those
without admission weight measurements even after adjustment for covariates
highlighted the important implication of weight measurement on admission.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
189
It is common for studies to exclude participants with missing nutrition data in the
analysis113, 120, 203, therefore the characteristics of these participants are usually
unknown. From the literature reviewed, the relationship between weight
availability and clinical outcomes had only been reported in one study. This study
by Stratton et al (2006)202 conducted in the UK with 150 hospitalised elderly
(mean age 85 years) showed that amongst those without admission weight (44%),
in-hospital mortality was higher (40% vs 12%) and median LOS (50, range 13-87
days vs 17, range 14-20 days) was longer than those who could be weighed.
Weight was unavailable in a higher proportion of participants (44%) in this study
than in the present study (15%).
Participants who did not have their admission weight measured in the present
study were sicker and had poorer functional capacity on admission (refer to Table
4-1). These reasons may have prevented them from being transferred safely to
chair scales. As shown in this study, patients who were unfit for weighing were
more likely to experience poor clinical outcomes (refer to Table 5-4) and had a
higher prevalence of malnutrition (refer to Table 4-1). Hence lack of weight
measurements should be treated as a risk and prompt a follow-up action. It is
crucial that these patients can be assessed using alternative measurements or tools
which are independent of the weight. It is also important to consider a nutritional
assessment method that can be applied to all patients in routine clinical practice, so
that no one will be excluded from the appropriate intervention due to incomplete
data.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
190
The other implication of the results was that participants excluded from the
MNA/BMI and outcome analysis (due to the lack of admission weight) were at
this increased risk of 6-month mortality (adjusted OR 4.99, 95% CI [1.86-13.40],
p<0.05 in Table 5-4). The absence of a statistically significant relationship
between MNA/BMI and 6-month mortality could be attributed in part by this
missing data.
5.4.6 Predictive power of nutritional assessment to ols and
indices on clinical outcomes
The ROC curve analysis is commonly used to determine and compare the
predictive power of medical diagnostic tools374. This approach has also been
commonly adopted in the validation of nutrition screening tools. However its
application in evaluating the predictive validity of the different malnutrition
assessment methods may not have been as commonly reported.
Based on the comparisons of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the various
malnutrition models against the clinical outcomes, both the SGA and MNA
models had comparable performance (predictive validity) in predicting the
outcomes (discharge to higher level care, 3-month readmission, and mortality, see
Table 5.4). However, the SGA was slightly superior at predicting service
outcomes e.g. LOS >11 days (AUC 0.75), than MNA (AUC 0.72), and it also
showed the highest average AUC across all the clinical outcomes. The main
limitation for the MNA was the relatively lower completion rate (84%) compared
to SGA (100%). This was reported earlier in section 3.3.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
191
Both the nutritional assessment tools (SGA and MNA) demonstrated better
predictive ability for more clinical outcomes as compared to the single objective
measures (BMI and CAMA). The SGA and MNA tools include more dimensions
e.g. socio-psychological, medical and functional factors, in the assessment of
malnutrition instead of focusing on a single factor. Therefore they are more likely
to be predictive of poor clinical outcomes317, 319, 320. Between SGA and MNA, the
present study showed that the SGA was a significant predictor of more clinical
outcomes than the MNA. The SGA was also more likely to be collected accurately
than MNA in the present study as weight measurement was not as essential in the
final rating of the SGA as it was for the MNA, resulting in a higher completion
rate for the former.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
192
5.5 Conclusion
Malnutrition on admission was associated with increased LOS (>11days), 3-month
readmission, 6-month mortality, and 6-month functional status in Singapore
hospitalised older adults. Malnutrition, defined mainly by the SGA, remained a
significant predictor of these important clinical outcomes (LOS>11days, 3-month
readmission and 6-month mortality) independent of the influences from a
comprehensive range of covariates. The risk of 6-month mortality was three times
higher among the malnourished older patients, regardless of their medical, clinical
and functional conditions on admission. Although the associations between poor
nutritional status and adverse clinical outcomes have been frequently reported in
hospitalised older adults, only a few studies have shown the influence of
malnutrition on clinical outcomes prospectively like what the present study did. In
addition, the independent effect of malnutrition on adverse outcomes was only
shown in a few studies with adjustment for only a limited number of covariates
(refer to Table 1-11). Therefore results from this study highlighted the independent
impact of nutritional status on clinical outcomes in hospitalised older adults.
Comparing the predictive validity of the four malnutrition assessment methods on
clinical outcomes, both the SGA and MNA (in logistic regression models) were
comparable in their diagnostic performances with similar AUCs for all the
outcomes. However, the average AUC for the SGA across the outcomes was the
highest (0.72) and it also was able to predict the most clinical outcomes at both the
univariate (4 out of 5) and multivariate analyses (3 out of 5). An additional
practical consideration was the higher completion rate for the SGA (100%)
compared to the MNA (84%), which would allow wider application of the SGA to
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
193
the population. Participants excluded from the MNA analysis due to the lack of
admission weight was shown to be at increased risk of adverse clinical outcome
(6-month mortality: adjusted OR 4.99, 95% CI [1.86-13.40], p<0.05). This
potentially underestimated the impact of malnutrition on clinical outcomes when
the MNA was used. Therefore when all these results were considered in
combination, they supported the selection of the SGA as the most appropriate
reference standard for defining malnutrition for the population and setting in the
present study.
In the next chapter 6, the validation of nutritional screening tools against the
selected reference standard for malnutrition assessment –SGA, is reported.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
194
6 Criterion-related validity of nutrition screening tools
6.1 Introduction and aims
Chapters 4 and 5 highlighted the high prevalence (23-35%) of malnutrition
amongst hospitalised older adults in a Singapore acute hospital and its impact on
adverse clinical outcomes. It is important that nutrition screening is implemented
with a validated screening tool. Although there are several screening tools
available (refer section 1.6.2), none have been validated in Singapore hospitalised
older adults.
The aim of this Chapter is to validate four nutrition screening tools, TTSH NST,
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
202
Figure 6-2: ROC curve of MNA-SF against SGA (n=235)
Abbreviations: MNA-SF185: Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form MNA-SF was shown separately in this figure as higher MNA-SF score indicated “no risk” for malnutrition instead of “at risk”, which was opposite from the other tools.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
203
Figure 6-3: ROC curve of TTSH NST (completed by the dietetic technician) against SGA for all participants aged >60 years (n=281)
AUC= 0.87
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
204
Figure 6-4: ROC curve of TTSH NST (completed by the dietetic technician) against SGA for participants aged >85 years (n=95)
AUC=0.85
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
205
6.3.3 Predictive validity (prognostic performance) of TTSH NST
In addition to evaluating the diagnostic performance of the nutrition screening
tools, some studies166, 200, 203, 215, 224 analysed their predictive validity as patients
who are at risk of malnutrition were more likely to have adverse outcomes e.g.
LOS215. From the results presented earlier in this Chapter, it was evident that
TTSH NST had the best diagnostic performance against SGA compared to the
other three nutrition screening tools. The predictive validity of the TTSH NST
was hence evaluated to further assess its clinical value as a nutrition screening
tool. If confirmed so, this would further strengthen its selection.
The clinical outcomes of participants assessed by TTSH NST-defined nutritional
risk (assessed by the dietetic technician) are presented in Table 6-3. Participants at
risk of malnutrition had significantly longer LOS (13.3 vs 10.6 days, p<0.05),
lower MBI score at 6-months (59.7 vs 77.6, p<0.05), higher risk of staying longer
(LOS>11days) in hospital (OR 1.83, 95% CI [1.13-2.97], p<0.05), and higher risk
of mortality at 6-months (OR 2.53, 95% CI [1.19-5.42], p<0.05).
After adjustment for covariates (age, race, dementia, depression, severity of
illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission
MBI), the TTSH NST)-defined nutritional risk (assessed by the dietetic technician
was shown to be predictive of LOS >11days (OR 1.89, 95% CI [1.05-3.35],
p<0.05). This is presented in Table 6-3. Mortality and MBI at 6-months became
insignificant after adjustment for the comprehensive range of covariates.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
206
Table 6-3: TTSH NST-defined malnutrition risk as assessed by the dietetic technician and clinical outcomes
Outcomes N (n)#
TTSH NST- At risk
malnutrition (n=118)
TTSH NST- Not at risk
malnutrition (n=162)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞∞∞∞ Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) >/= 11 days^ <11 days
280 (267)
13.3+8.3 11 (3-50) 62(53) 56(47)
10.6+7.1 8(2-41) 61(38) 101(62)
2.7+
1.83*
0.9-4.5
1.13-2.97
0.004† 0.013
2.2+
1.89*
0.5-4.0
1.05-3.35
0.014† 0.033
Discharge higher level care Yes No
277 (264)
38(33) 79(67)
43(27) 117(73)
1.31
0.78-2.21
0.311
1.17
0.64-2.14
0.619
3-month readmission Yes No
273 (260)
47(41) 68(59)
52(33) 106(67)
1.41
0.86-2.32
0.177
0.56
0.57-1.82
0.957
6-month mortality Yes No
279 (266)
20(17) 98(83)
12(8)
149(92)
2.53*
1.19-5.42
0.014
0.57
0.71-4.01
0.239
6-month MBI, mean+SD
246 (234)
59.7+34.8
77.6+27.7
-17.9+ -25.8, -10.0
<0.001†
NR
NR
0.163†
Abbreviations: TTSH NST: Tan Tock Seng Hospital Nutrition Screening Tool; LOS: length of stay; MBI: Modified Barthel Index; NR: Not relevant Results are expressed as n(%) # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit ∞∞∞∞ Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI †‡ Comparisons between participants at risk and not at risk of malnutrition, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants not at risk of malnutrition) * Participants at risk of malnutrition significantly associated with outcome, p<0.05 + Β (unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants at risk of malnutrition had significantly longer LOS and lower 6-month MBI score.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
207
6.4 Discussion
6.4.1 Evaluation of TTSH NST
The TTSH NST showed the best diagnostic performance when compared against the
SGA in this study. It had 100% completion rate, with the highest AUC of 0.865, and
the best balance between sensitivity (84%), specificity (79%), positive predictive
value (PPV; 68%) and negative predictive value (NPV; 90%). This means that the
TTSH NST was able to accurately identify 84% of the malnourished participants as
‘at risk’, and 79% of the well-nourished participants as ‘no risk’. Among those
screened to be ‘at risk’, 68% were malnourished, and 90% of those screened as ‘no
risk’ were well-nourished. The TTSH NST was able to effectively exclude those who
were well-nourished. Even though 32% of those screened as ‘at risk’ were well-
nourished, the TTSH NST serves the function of a nutrition screening tool which
includes identifying those at risk of malnutrition.
The optimal cut-off for the TTSH NST remained at score four even among the oldest
old hospitalised patients (aged >85 years), showing that the tool is applicable across
the age spectrum of the older adults. In addition, the TTSH NST also demonstrated
good prognostic performance for LOS >11days even after adjustment for a
comprehensive range of covariates. These evaluation results further strengthen the
validity and usefulness of the TTSH NST.
However the main limitation for the TTSH NST is the discrepancies in screening
results when it was administered by different assessors. The diagnostic performance
of the TTSH NST was poorer when completed by the nurses than by the dietetic
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
208
technician (refer to Table 6-2). The inter-rater reliability of TTSH NST between the
dietitians and nurses was >90% when the tool was developed and first implemented
(Appendix: TTSH Medical Board Paper on TTSH NST). However, the current study
showed a lower inter-rater reliability (kappa estimate 0.28) between the dietetic
technician and nurses who completed the screening routinely.
The malnutrition risk assessments performed by the nurses in this study were part of
the routine assessments for all newly admitted patients according to the hospital
nutrition screening policy. Although nurses in the hospital had received training from
the dietitians on the administration of the TTSH NST, it is possible that they were still
not adequately trained, or did not recognise the importance of screening accurately. In
comparison, the assessment by the dietetic technician was performed by a single
assessor who had more content knowledge and nutrition training than the nurses. As
the dietetic technician was acutely aware that the study was to assess the malnutrition
risk of the participants and to evaluate the four screening tools, she would be more
conscientious in applying the tool to obtain more accurate data.
6.4.2 Poor diagnostic performance of MNA-SF
One of the main shortcomings of the MNA-SF identified in the evaluation was the
reliance on BMI calculation. The completion rate for the MNA-SF (84%) was lower
than for the other screening tools (100%) where the calculation of BMI was not
required. Higher completion rates were usually observed in the use of nutrition
screening tools which do not require measurements of weight or BMI179, 203.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
209
The MNA-SF did not perform well in the present study, when compared to other
studies213, 375. Although the present study showed a very high sensitivity (100%,
Table 6-2) for the MNA-SF using the original cut-off score of 11, its specificity
(27%) was very poor. This means that it was able to identify all the participants who
were malnourished, but at the same time 73% (1-specificity) of the well-nourished
participants were incorrectly identified with malnutrition risk (high false positive).
Borowiak and Kostka375 (2003) validated the MNA-SF against the full MNA among
311 community and institutionalised elderly aged >65 years in Poland. Its sensitivity
in the community-living elderly (74%) may not be as high as that in the present
study, but the specificity was much higher (95%). Similarly when Rubenstein et al213
(2001) validated the MNA-SF against the full MNA among 881 elderly (mean age 76
years) predominantly from the community (74%) in France, Spain and New Mexico,
both the sensitivity (98%) and specificity (100%) were shown to be high.
A plausible explanation for the poor performance of the MNA-SF in the present
study could be the differences in care settings. In the previous studies213, 375, the
participants were predominantly community-dwelling older adults and were younger
than the older hospitalised group in the present study. During hospitalisation, the
acute clinical conditions of the patients were usually associated with poorer
functional status. On admission to the hospital, the MNA may potentially identify
many of the older adults to be at risk of malnutrition due to several functional-related
questions in the MNA which are not specific to poor nutrition e.g. poor mobility, not
living independently and inability to feed without assistance. All these may explain
the lower specificity of the MNA-SF.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
210
Another reason may be that the MNA-SF is culturally sensitive223. For example, the
BMI cut-offs used for scoring in the MNA-SF may not be appropriate for Asians and
the diet-related questions may not be applicable to another culture where the dietary
habits and food choices differ. It is possible that the MNA-SF may not perform
equally well in an Asian population and may be less suitable for application to
Singapore older adults.
The other possible reason may relate to the different validation references used (i.e.
SGA vs full MNA). One would expect the diagnostic performance of a screening tool
to be better when validated against a reference which consists of similar questions.
For example, one would expect good performance when the MNA-SF is validated
against the full MNA, which the former was derived from. However, it was not
shown to be so all the time. In a separate validation study conducted by Cohendy et
al376 (2001), the MNA-SF was validated against the full MNA (malnourished, score
<17) among 408 preoperative ambulatory older adults in France. The MNA-SF
showed very good sensitivity and NPV (both 100%), but poorer specificity (70%)
and PPV (19%). Cohendy et al376 validated the MNA-SF against patients with the
full MNA score <17 for classification of malnutrition. However, the other studies
validated the MNA-SF against patients classified as either “at risk of undernutrition”
or “malnourished” (MNA score <23.5) in the full MNA 213, 375. The key lies in the
difference between the reference groups for validation i.e. malnourished vs at risk
and malnourished, between studies.
Overall performance of the MNA-SF in the present study was inferior to other
studies. However, the AUC for the MNA-SF (0.839) shown in the present study was
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
211
close to that of the TTSH NST. Therefore the MNA-SF may still be useful if a
different cut-off is established, and some question modifications are considered.
6.4.3 Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002)
Few studies have validated the NRS 2002 in hospitalised older adults and with mixed
results203, 206, 215, 216. Drescher et al206 showed that the higher NRS 2002 score
indicating increased malnutrition risk was associated with reduced serum prealbumin
and retinol-binding protein (biochemical markers of protein malnutrition) in 104
geriatric hospitalised patients from Switzerland (median age 84 years, range 78-89
years). Raslan et al216 showed in their sample of 705 Brazilian hospitalised patients
(169 patients age >65 years) that the NRS 2002 was predictive of severe
complications (OR2.6, 95% CI [1.1-6.4]) and death (OR 3.9, 95% CI [1.2-13.1]).
Similarly, the NRS 2002 was shown by Martins et al215 to be an independent risk
factor for longer LOS (OR 2.25, 95% CI [1.03-4.88]) among 207 hospitalised elderly
patients (mean age 74+7 years) in Portugal215. However the German study by Bauer
et al203 that compared the NRS 2002 against serum albumin and LOS in 121 geriatric
patients (mean age 80+8 years) did not reveal any significant associations. In
addition, validity (i.e. sensitivity and specificity) was not reported in all these study
and none had compared it against the SGA203, 206, 215, 216.
From the literature reviewed, only one other study224 had validated the NRS 2002
against the SGA. Kyle et al224 compared the diagnostic performance of the NRS 2002
against the SGA among 995 hospitalised patients in Switzerland (mean age 51+22
years). They reported a higher specificity (93%) and PPV (85%) and lower sensitivity
(62%) and NPV (79%) for NRS 2002224 than that reported in the present study (Table
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
212
6-2). The differences between the studies could be related to the different age and
types of patients.
Overall, the NRS 2002 has been shown to be predictive of adverse clinical outcomes
in hospitalised older adults. In the present study, the diagnostic performance of the
NRS 2002 is close to that shown among younger hospital patients. With improved
sensitivity, the NRS 2002 can be a potentially useful screening tool for use with
hospitalised older adults.
6.4.4 SNAQ-Modified Tool
The SNAQ-Modified tool detected a higher malnutrition risk level (35%) compared to
These slight differences may be attributable to the different mean age and patient mix
between the validation population and the present study sample; the latter consisted
of medical geriatric patients. Moreover, the different nutrition reference standards
(BMI/weight loss vs SGA) used for validation of the screening tools in both studies
could also influence the tool performances. Therefore the SNAQ-Modified tool
which requires less than five minutes to administer, needs no calculations179 and does
not require a BMI measure, has the potential to be applied to hospitalised older
adults.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
214
6.5 Conclusion
From the comparisons of the diagnostic performances of the four nutrition screening
tools, the TTSH NST (when completed by the dietetic technician) is clearly the most
appropriate nutrition screening tool to be applied to hospitalised older adults in
Singapore. The TTSH NST had 100% completion rate and the best diagnostic
performance amongst all the nutrition screening tools when compared against the
SGA, with the highest AUC (0.865) and the best balance between sensitivity (84%),
specificity (79%), positive predictive value (PPV; 68%) and negative predictive value
(NPV; 90%). However for the TTSH NST to achieve the good diagnostic
performance shown, it may have to be completed by a dietetic technician. Besides its
good diagnostic performance for nutritional status defined by the SGA, the TTSH
NST also demonstrated good prognostic performance for LOS >11days even after
adjustment for a comprehensive range of covariates. The TTSH NST is a valid and
useful nutrition screening tool, at the same optimal cut-off score of 4, even among the
oldest old hospitalised patients (aged >85 years) in Singapore if administered by a
dietetic technician.
Limitations and difficulties surrounding the measurements of weight and height were
reported in this study. Many older adults in Singapore do not monitor or remember
their weight therefore the poor knowledge of weight history among the study
participants is not surprising. In addition, healthcare institutions and facilities in
Singapore do not always measure and record patients’ weight. This limited the
suitability and application of the MNA-SF in the study population. Although the NRS
2002 and SNAQ (modified version) also demonstrated potential application in the
study group, they were not developed from the local population. Therefore, to
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
215
consider the use of these tools, further modification and validation of these tools
would be required prior to their adoption in the local population.
With the high prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalised older adults reported in
this study, there must be earlier and better recognition and treatment of malnourished
patients. All patients aged >60 years admitted to the hospital should be screened using
the TTSH NST administered by a dietetic technician to determine their malnutrition
risk. If identified to be at risk, they should undergo a comprehensive nutritional
assessment by a dietitian, including use of the SGA to determine their nutritional
status. This would allow appropriate, timely nutritional intervention to be
implemented.
Currently, the study hospital is using the TTSH NST administered by the nurses to
screen all patients on admission and the SGA to assess nutritional status of those
identified to be at risk of malnutrition. Therefore the study provides an evidence base
for the use of the current screening (TTSH NST) and assessment (SGA) tools at
TTSH. However, the study results emerged that performance of the TTSH NST is
enhanced when administered by a dietetic technician. The best personnel to conduct
the routine nutritional screening, which is currently performed by the nurses, may
have to be reviewed. One option is to recruit more dietetic technicians to undertake all
the screening. Another alternative is to provide and facilitate better training for the
nurses to more accurately administer the TTSH NST. The nurses will need to
recognise that nutrition screening is integral to the overall patient assessment and care
so that they will take ownership of the process.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
216
7 Changes in anthropometric measurements and
nutritional status during hospitalisation, and impa ct
on clinical outcomes
7.1 Introduction and aims
Despite the high prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalised patients, poor
recognition and under-treatment of malnutrition remain a concern (previously
discussed in section 1.5.5). As a result, further nutritional depletion can occur during
hospitalisation and lead to worsened nutritional status among malnourished patients.
Both well and malnourished patients are potentially at risk of decline in nutritional
status during admission. Risk factors for this deterioration are previously discussed in
section 1.4 and include inadequate nutritional care, severity of illness, medication side
effects, and anorexia. Unfortunately, the monitoring and documentation of nutritional
status during hospitalisation of older adults has not been as widely reported as the
reporting of prevalence of malnutrition.
Nutritional status has been closely associated with clinical outcomes amongst
hospitalised older adults (section 1.4). The present study data are in line with results
from other studies, showing that malnutrition upon hospital admission independently
predicts adverse clinical outcomes (previously discussed in Chapter 5). Although
older adults are vulnerable to further decline in nutritional status during
hospitalisation (see section 1.5.5), few studies have investigated the extent and impact
of such a decline in status during the course of an admission on clinical outcomes.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
217
The aims of this Chapter are to examine the changes in anthropometric measurements
and nutritional status of older adults during hospital admission and the prospective
association with clinical, functional and system outcomes. It will answer the fifth
research question: “What are the changes in anthropometric measures and nutritional
status of older adults during hospital admission and the impact of reduced nutritional
status on clinical outcomes?”. In this Chapter, a review would also be done to discuss
the level of malnutrition recognition and dietitian referral of the study participants
based on routine care in the hospital.
7.2 Methods
Weight, MAC, TSF, MAMC, MAMA and CAMA measurements and SGA were
repeated by the dietitian (YP Lim) not more than two days prior to discharge. These
discharge anthropometric measures were compared with those measured on admission
using paired sample t-tests and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, with mean change (+SD)
in measurements presented. Changes in the classification of nutritional status by SGA
on admission and discharge were compared using McNemar test. The MNA was not
repeated as a few of its questions are related to characteristics associated with acute
illness and they tend to improve over an admission when patient’s clinical condition
improves over time20. For example, the scoring for the questions on mobility and
living independently (refer to Appendix Table A-2, Question C and G) may improve
as the patient recovers from the acute illness. Therefore the difference in the MNA
score on admission and at discharge may not be indicative of the change in nutritional
status.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
218
For participants with a reduction in any of the anthropometric parameters (on a pair-
wise basis) during admission, the median net and percentage change from baseline
(admission) for each of these anthropometric measurements were calculated.
Percentage weight loss during admission (relative to baseline admission weight) was
computed individually in participants with available admission and discharge weights.
Weight loss >1% per week of admission was used to define decline in nutritional
status236, 366 (refer to section 2.2.4.2 for more details) as no similar cut-offs for decline
were available for the other arm anthropometric measurements. Percentage weight
loss per week was calculated using the equation: (weight loss during
hospitalisation/admission weight) x (7 days/LOS) x 100%.
Chi-square tests were applied to compare the appetite, chewing, swallowing, clinical
characteristics and nutritional status on admission, between participants with weight
loss >1%, and weight loss <1% per week of hospitalisation. Factors associated with
decline in nutritional status (weight loss >1%) during admission were identified.
To determine the impact of decline in nutritional status (weight loss >1% vs weight
loss <1%) during hospitalisation on clinical outcomes (LOS>11days, discharge to
higher level care, 3-month readmission, 6-month mortality and MBI), univariate and
multivariate analyses were performed.
The recognition of malnutrition upon hospital admission and referral to the dietitian
during admission based on standard routine care were reviewed from the participants’
medical records at discharge. Referrals to the dietitian were made by the nurses based
on the nutrition screening score (performed by the nurses routinely) or by the doctors
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
219
based on their clinical judgement. The level of malnutrition recognition (by nurses)
was evaluated by comparing the proportion of those identified as at risk upon
admission through the routine nutrition screening, against the total malnourished
participants (assessed by SGA in the study). The frequency of referral to the dietitan
was expressed as a proportion against the frequency of those who were malnourished
(defined by SGA), as well as those with decline in nutritional status (weight loss
>1%) during admission.
The timeliness of referral to the dietitian was based on the median time to referral
after hospital admission, comparing between the well-nourished and malnourished
participants, and comparing between those with and without decline in nutritional
status, using Mann-Whitney test.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
220
7.3 Results
7.3.1 Change in anthropometric measurements and nut ritional
status during hospitalisation
The median length of hospitalisation was 9 days (range: 2-50 days). Table 7-1 shows
the anthropometric measurements and nutritional status of older adults on admission
to and at discharge from an acute hospital in Singapore. Weight, MAC, TSF, MAMC
and MAMA significantly (p<0.05) decreased during hospital admission as shown
using paired-sample t-test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test with no significant
(p>0.05) change in CAMA and the SGA nutritional status classification at discharge.
Table 7-2 shows the frequency and proportions of participants with decline in
anthropometric measures and nutritional status during hospitalisation, the median
decline and median percentage decline from baseline (admission) measurements. The
proportion of participants with reduced anthropometric measures and nutritional
status ranged from 4% based on SGA to 44% based on weight loss. The median
percentage decline in these anthropometric measures ranged from 2.1% to 9.1%, with
TSF showing the greatest decline.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
221
Table 7-1: Anthropometric measurements and nutritional status of older adults (>60 years) on admission to and upon discharge from an acute care hospital [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)]
n# Admission Discharge Mean change (Discharge-Admission)
arm muscle circumference; MAMA: mid-arm muscle area; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area;
SGA: Subjective Global Assessment. #Only participants with both admission and discharge measurements were included.
Results are expressed as mean+SD(range) or n(%). + Both admission and discharge weight measurements were only available for 69% participants
as many were unfit to be weighed or weighing was missed out prior discharge.
†‡§Comparisons between admission and discharge measurements were performed by paired
sample t-test(†), McNemar test (‡) and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test (§).
*Significantly lower than admission measurements, p<0.05. a CAMA : Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female),
Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female) 286; b SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished),
Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely
malnourished) 235
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
222
Table 7-2: Frequency and magnitude of decline in anthropometric measurements and nutritional status of older adults (>60 years) with admission and discharge assessment [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)]
arm muscle circumference; MAMA: mid-arm muscle area; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area;
SGA: Subjective Global Assessment. #Only participants with both admission and discharge measurements were included.
^ Median length of stay for participants with weight loss during hospitalisation = 11 days (4-40
days) + Both admission and discharge weight measurements were only available for 69% participants
as many were unfit to be weighed or weighing was missed out prior to discharge.
* Per cent weight loss per week = (weight loss during hospitalisation/admission weight) x (7
days/LOS) x 100%; computed only in participants with both admission and discharge weights
taken. Only participants with both admission and discharge weight measurements were
included.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
223
7.3.1.1 Weight loss
Only 193 participants (69%) had their weight taken both on admission and at
discharge as many were unfit to be weighed or weighing was missed prior to
discharge. Of these 193 participants, 28% were malnourished (defined by SGA) on
admission, and 44% experienced weight loss (median 1.0kg, range 0.1-6.8kg) during
hospitalisation (Table 7-2). Forty-three per cent of those defined by SGA as
malnourished and 45% of those well-nourished on admission lost weight during
admission (p=1.00).
Based on those who lost weight during admission (n=85), those defined by SGA on
admission as malnourished (27%) lost a median of 0.9kg (range 0.2-6.8kg) and those
identified as well-nourished (73%) lost 1.2kg (range 0.1-6.4kg). The difference in the
magnitude of weight loss between the two groups were not statistically significant
(p=0.84).
The median LOS for the participants who experienced weight loss (n=85) was 11
days (range 4-40 days). Among those who experienced weight loss (median weight
loss 1.0kg), the median percentage decline from admission (baseline admission mean
weight 50.4kg) was 2.1% (range 0.2-16.6%). By the end of their hospitalisation, 52
participants (27%) experienced significant weight loss of >1% per week. Among this
group of participants (n=52), the median percentage decline was 3.6% (range 0.9-
16.6%).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
224
7.3.1.2 Decline in arm anthropometric measures and SGA
Arm anthropometric measurements on both admission and discharge were available
for 88% of participants. Reduction of arm measurements (MAC, TSF, MAMC,
MAMA, CAMA) during hospitalisation occurred in 33-43% of the participants. The
median decline and median percentage decline in arm measurements during
hospitalisation are shown in Table 7-2. The greatest median percentage decline
relative to baseline was found using TSF (9.1%, range 2.6-35.3%), followed by
CAMA (4.9%, range 0.2-31.1%). The SGA was completed at both admission and
discharge for 99% of participants, of which 4% (11 participants) showed decline in
the SGA status. More participants were identified with decline in nutritional status
when the anthropometric criteria (27-44%) were used as assessment methods
compared to SGA (4%).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
225
7.3.2 Factors associated with weight loss > 1% per week during
hospitalisation
Table 7-3 shows appetite, chewing, swallowing, clinical and nutritional characteristics
that are potential risk factors for weight loss during hospitalisation. Participants on
thickened fluids were more likely to experience weight loss >1% per week (p=0.03).
None of the other variables were found to be significantly (p<0.05) associated with
weight loss.
Of those with significant weight loss of >1% per week, 27% (37/139) were well-
malnourished and 28% (15/54) malnourished (p=0.86) as defined by admission SGA.
There were no statistically significant (p<0.05) associations between participants’
nutritional status on admission, regardless of malnutrition assessment method, and
risk of significant weight loss during hospitalisation. Both well-nourished and
malnourished patients were equally likely to experience significant weight loss during
hospitalisation.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
226
Table 7-3: Association of appetite, chewing, swallowing, clinical and nutritional characteristics of older adults (>60 years) with weight loss >1% per week during acute hospitalisation [median LOS 9 days (range 2-50 days)]
Appetite, chewing, swallowing , clinical and nutritional characteristics
n Weight loss <1% per week
(n=141)
Weight loss >1% per week
(n=52)
p value
^Appetite Good Poor
191 86(62) 53(38)
31(60) 21(40)
0.868
^Dentition Good Poor
191 13(9)
126(91)
7(14) 45(86)
0.431
Swallowing impairment Yes No
191 8(6)
131(94)
5(10) 47(90)
0.346
^Modified Texture Diet Yes No
191 50(36) 89(64)
25(48) 27(52)
0.137
^Thickened fluid Yes No
191 2(1)
137(99)
4(8)
48(92)
0.027*
aDementia Yes No
193 45(32) 96(68)
14(27) 38(73)
0.598
bDepression Yes No
186 39(28) 98(72)
14(29) 35(71)
1.000
cSGA - Well-nourished Malnourished
193 102(72) 39(28)
37(71) 15(29)
0.859
dMNA- Well-nourished Malnourished
192 113(80) 28(20)
39(76) 12(24)
0.688
eBMI- Well-nourished Malnourished
192 112(79) 29(21)
39(76) 12(24)
0.692
fCAMA- Well-nourished Malnourished
192 110(78) 31(220
34(67) 17(33)
0.131
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment; BMI: body mass index; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area Results are expressed as n(%) for all variables. Only participants with weight measurements on admission and discharge were included. ^Self-reported by participants or caregivers. * Significantly different between participants with weight loss <1% per week and weight loss >1% per week, performed by Fisher Exact test, p<0.05 a Defined using DSM IV criteria354 by physician b Defined using a single question “Do you often feel sad or depressed?”355 c SGA: Well-nourished=SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; d MNA: Well-nourished= MNA score >17 (at risk & well-nourished), Malnourished=MNA score<17 (malnourished) 339; e BMI: Well-nourished=BMI>18.5kg/m2, Malnourished=BMI<18.5kg/m2 259; f CAMA: Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male),CAMA >21.4cm2(female); Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male),CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
227
7.3.3 Decline in nutritional status during hospital isation and
clinical outcomes
The clinical outcomes of participants who experienced >1% versus <1% of weight
loss per week during hospitalisation are presented in Table 7-4. Participants who had
>1% of weight loss per week during hospitalisation had a higher risk of discharge to
higher level care (OR 2.64, 95% CI [1.31-5.31], p<0.05), even after adjustment for
covariates (adjusted OR 2.48, 95% CI [1.12-5.48], p<0.05) and regardless of
admission nutritional status.
With both admission and discharge weight measured for only 69% of participants, it
would be useful to identify alternative nutrition measures to monitor change in
nutritional status over an admission. CAMA is able to detect changes related to
muscle atrophy286. This study has shown that CAMA (median percentage decline
4.9%) was able to detect the greatest loss of body muscle protein compared to other
arm measurements (except TSF which measures fat loss) and CAMA was easier to
obtain (88%) than weight (Table 7-2). Furthermore, it was discussed in Chapter 5
(section 5.4.1.1) that CAMA could be a potential measurement to be used in addition
or as an alternative to SGA to diagnose malnutrition due to its ability to predict 6-
month mortality. Therefore to determine the potential usefulness of CAMA as an
alternative parameter for monitoring nutritional status, the association between
decline in CAMA during hospitalisation and clinical outcomes were evaluated (Table
7-5). A decline in CAMA predicted longer LOS (unadjusted OR 3.54, 95% CI [5.06-
6.09]; adjusted OR 3.35, 95% CI [1.80-6.24], p<0.05) and increased risk of discharge
to higher level care (unadjusted OR 2.66, 95% CI [1.49-4.74]; adjusted OR 2.46, 95%
CI [1.27-4.70], p<0.05).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
228
Table 7-4: Weight loss of >1% per week of hospitalisation among older adults (>60 years) and the associated clinical outcomes
Outcomes N (n)#
Weight loss <1% per week (n=141)
Weight loss >1% per week (n=52)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞ Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) > 11 days^ <11 days
193 (186)
10.8+7.8 8 (2-50) 75(36) 91(64)
10.9+4.5 10 (4-24) 25(48) 27(52)
NR+ 1.69
NR
0.89-3.21
NR† 0.112
NR+ 1.47
NR
0.71-3.03
0.710† 0.300
Discharge higher level care Yes No
193 (186)
27(19) 114(81)
20(38) 32(62)
2.64*
1.31-5.31
0.006
2.48*
1.12-5.48
0.025
3-month readmission Yes No
192 (185)
51(36) 89(64)
15(29) 37(71)
0.71
0.35-1.41
0.327
0.56
0.26-1.23
0.148
6-month mortality Yes No
192 (185)
10(7)
130(93)
3(6)
49(94)
0.80
0.21-3.01
0.737
0.57
0.13-2.48
0.455
6-month MBI, mean+SD
178 (171)
76.5+28.8
75.6+29.5
NR+
NR
NR†
NR+
NR
0.549†
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: modified Barthel Index; NR: not relevant. Results are expressed as n(%)or mean+SD # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit ∞Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI †‡ Comparisons between participants with and without weight loss >1% per week, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants with weight loss <1% per week) * Weight loss >1% per week significantly associated with outcome, p<0.05 + Β (unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants with weight loss >1% per week not statistically different in LOS and 6-month MBI
score
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
229
Table 7-5: Decline in CAMA during hospitalisation among older adults (>60 years) and the associated clinical outcomes
Outcomes N (n)#
CAMA No change/increased
(n=154)
CAMA Decline (n=92)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞ Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) > 11 days^ <11 days
246 (234)
9.6+6.4 8 (2-50) 47(31) 107(69)
14.8+8.9 12 (4-42) 56(62) 36(39)
5.25+ 3.54*
3.33-7.18 2.06-6.09
<0.001† <0.001
4.36+ 3.35*
2.57-6.16 1.80-6.24
<0.001† <0.001
Discharge higher level care Yes No
246 (234)
30(19) 124(81)
36(39) 56(61)
2.66*
1.49-4.74
0.001
2.46*
1.27-4.70
0.007
3-month readmission Yes No
243 (231)
56(37) 97(63)
32(36) 58(64)
0.96
0.56-1.64
0.870
0.97
0.52-1.80
0.916
6-month mortality Yes No
245 (233)
16(10) 138(90)
10(11) 81(89)
1.07
0.46-2.46
0.883
0.91
0.35-2.41
0.851
6-month MBI, mean+SD 218 (207)
71.0+32.8
72.0+28.2
NR+ NR NR† NR+ NR 0.392†
Abbreviations: CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; LOS: length of stay; MBI: modified Barthel Index Results are expressed as n(%)or mean+SD # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit ∞Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI †‡ Comparisons between participants with and without decline in CAMA, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants with no change/increased CAMA) * Decline in CAMA significantly associated with outcomes, p<0.05 + Β (unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants with decline in CAMA had significantly longer LOS, but 6-month MBI score not
statistically different.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
230
7.3.4 Comparison of participants with admission wei ght
In Chapters 4 and 5, it was highlighted that participants without weight measurement
on admission (n=43) were more malnourished, had poorer functional status on
admission and higher 6-month mortality. Of those with admission weight
measurements (n=238), 45 (19%) did not have weight taken at discharge. Participants
with (n=193) and without (n=45) discharge weight measurement were compared for
differences in any of their characteristics, nutritional status or clinical outcomes.
Table 7-6 shows that amongst participants with admission weight (n=238), those who
did not have discharge weight had higher prevalence of malnutrition (47% vs 28%,
p<0.05) than those who had both weights recorded. They were not significantly
different in any other clinical characteristics (Table 7-6). Table 7-7 shows that the
absence of recorded discharge weight was significantly associated with higher risk of
discharge to higher level care (OR 2.03, 95% CI [1.02-4.07], p<0.05) and lower 6-
month MBI (Β-15.53, 95% CI [-25.91, -5.14], p<0.05). After adjustment for the
covariates, the absence of recorded discharge weight remained predictive of 6-month
MBI (Β-10.51, 95% CI [-18.49, -2.53], p<0.05) only.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
231
Table 7-6: Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition
prevalence between those with and without weight measurements at discharge#
Discharge weight
available
(n=193)
Discharge weight
not available
(n=45)
p value‡
Age 81.0+7.7 80.7+8.5 0826†
Gender-Male
-Female
83(43)
110(57)
21(47)
24(53)
0.656
Race-Chinese
-Non-Chinese
163(85)
30(15)
34(76)
11(24)
0.154
Dementia -Yes
- No
59(31)
134(69)
17(38)
28(62)
0.350
Depression-Yes
- No
53(29)
133(71)
8(19)
34(81)
0.212
Number of prescribed drugs 4.6+2.9 4.5+3.3 0.838†
Severity of illness a 2.1+0.4 2.1+0.3 0.890†
Charlson Comorbidity Index b 5.5+1.4 5.6+1.1 0.573†
Admission MBI c 65.6+24.3 59.0+28.1 0.112†
SGA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
139(72)
54(28)
24(53)
21(47)
0.015
CAMA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
144(75)
48(25)
30(68)
14(32)
0.354
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; MBI; Modified Barthel Index # Total sample only included those with available admission weight (n=238) Results in table are expressed as n(% of total) or mean+SD. †‡Comparison between participants with and without discharge weight was performed using independent samples t-test (†) and Chi-squared test (‡). SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; CAMA: Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female), Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
a Modified from original Severity of Illness Index358 into 4 level (of increasing severity from 1 to 4) burden of illness measure.
b Charlson Comorbidity Index357 takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid diseases. Higher scores indicate a more severe condition and prognosis.
c Modified Barthel Index162 evaluates the level of assistance required for activities of daily living. Scoring is based on a continuous scale 0-100, with 100 indicating independent function.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
Yen Peng LIM- Final Seminar Document 232
Table 7-7: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without discharge weight measurements#
Outcomes N (n)#
Discharge weight available
(n=193)
Discharge weight not available (n=45)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞ Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) >/= 11 days^ <11 days
237 (227)
11.8+7.0 9 (2-50) 99(42) 138(58)
13.0+8.1 11(3-39) 24(56) 19(44)
NR+ 1.89
NR
0.98-3.65
NS† 0.059
NR 1.54
NR
0.75-3.19
0.172† 0.243
Discharge higher level care Yes No
236 (226)
47(24) 146(76)
17(40) 26(60)
2.03*
1.02-4.07
0.045
1.87
0.87-4.02
0.111
3-month readmission Yes No
234 (224)
66(35) 125(65)
16(37) 27(63)
1.12
0.57-2.23
0.742
1.09
0.51-2.35
0.820
6-month mortality Yes No
235 (225)
13(7)
178(93)
5(11) 39(89)
1.76
0.59-5.21
0.311
1.83
0.57-5.90
0.309
6-month MBI, mean+SD
217 (207)
76.3+28.9
60.7+33.7
-15.53+ -25.91, -5.14
0.004†
-10.51+ -18.49, -2.53
0.010†
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: modified Barthel Index; NS: Not significant; NR: Not relevant # Total sample only included those with available admission weight (n=238) Results are expressed as n(%) or mean+SD # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit ∞Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlsons Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI †‡ Comparisons between participants with and without discharge weight, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants with discharge weight) * Participants without discharge weight significantly associated with 6-month mortality with and without adjustment of covariates, p<0.05 + Β(unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants without discharge weight had significantly longer LOS and lower 6-month MBI score
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
233
7.3.5 Comparison of participants with and without w eight change
data
Figure 7-1 shows the flowchart for the participants with and without weight
measurement on admission and discharge. A total of 88 participants did not have
weight change data; 45 participants had admission but no discharge weight, and 43
had no admission weight. When participants with (n=193) and without (n=88) weight
change data were compared, Table 7-8 shows that those without were significantly
more depressed (30% vs 18%, p<0.05) and had higher number of prescribed drugs
(4.9+2.9 vs 3.9+3.1, p<0.05). They were not significantly different in the clinical
outcomes as shown in Table 7-9.
Amongst those without weight change data (n=88), 50% had no change or increase in
CAMA, 34% had decline in CAMA, and 16% had incomplete CAMA data.
Comparing those participants with both weight change data and CAMA (n=183), 41%
of those with significant weight loss (>1% per week) were correspondingly identified
with decline in CAMA.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
234
Figure 7-1: Flowchart of participants with and without weight measurement on
admission and discharge
All participants n=281
Admission weight n=238
No admission weight n=43^
Discharge weight n=193*
No discharge weight n=45^
Discharge weight n=17
No discharge weight n=26
Weight loss n=85
Weight loss >1% per week n=52
*Total participants with weight change data = 193 ^Total participants without weight change data = 88
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
235
Table 7-8: Comparison of participants’ characteristics and malnutrition prevalence between those with and without weight change data
Weight change data
available
(n=193)
Weight change data
not available
(n=88)
p value‡
Age 80.9+7.2 82.2+8.4 0.176†
Gender-Male
-Female
81(42)
112(58)
43(49)
45(51)
0.280
Race-Chinese
-Non-Chinese
161(83)
32(17)
73(83)
15(17)
0.923
Dementia -Yes
- No
63(33)
130(67)
31(35)
57(65)
0.670
Depression-Yes
- No
55(30)
129(70)
15(18)
69(82)
0.037
Number of prescribed drugs 4.9+2.9 3.9+3.1 0.014†
Severity of illness a 2.1+0.4 2.1+0.4 0.376†
Charlson Comorbidity Index b 5.5+1.4 5.4+1.4 0.549†
Admission MBI c 59.1+27.1 59.7+30.5 0.883†
SGA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
134(70)
57(30)
65(75)
22(25)
0.435
CAMA
Well-nourished
Malnourished
120(62)
73(38)
64(73)
24(27)
0.084
Abbreviations: SGA: Subjective Global Assessment; CAMA: corrected arm muscle area; MBI; Modified Barthel Index Results in table are expressed as n(% of total) or mean+SD. †‡Comparison between participants with and without weight change data during admission was performed using independent samples t-test(†) and Chi-squared test(‡). SGA: Well-nourished =SGA rating A (well-nourished), Malnourished=SGA rating B (moderately malnourished) and C (severely malnourished) 235; CAMA : Well-nourished=CAMA>21.6cm2(male), CAMA >21.4cm2(female), Malnourished=CAMA<21.6cm2(male), CAMA<21.4cm2(female).286
a Modified from original Severity of Illness Index358 into 4 level (of increasing severity from 1 to 4) burden of illness measure.
b Charlson Comorbidity Index357 takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid diseases. Higher scores indicate a more severe condition and prognosis.
c Modified Barthel Index162 evaluates the level of assistance required for activities of daily living. Scoring is based on a continuous scale 0-100, with 100 indicating independent function.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
236
Table 7-9: Comparison of clinical outcomes between participants with and without weight change data
Outcomes N (n)#
Weight change data available
(n=193)
Weight change data not available (n=88)
Odds Ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
p value‡ Adjusted∞
Odds Ratio
Adjusted 95%
Confidence Interval
Adjusted p value‡
LOS , days, mean+SD Median (range) >/= 11 days^ <11 days
280 (267)
11.5+7.5 9 (2-42) 83(43) 109(57)
12.4+8.3 10(2-50) 40(46) 48(54)
NR+ 1.09
NR
0.66-1.82
NS† 0.728
NR 1.14
NR
0.64-2.04
0.300† 0.658
Discharge higher level care Yes No
277 (264)
55(29) 135(71)
26(30) 61(70)
1.05
0.60-1.82
0.873
0.93
0.50-1.72
0.812
3-month readmission Yes No
272 (259)
66(36) 120(64)
33(38) 53(62)
1.13
0.67-1.92
0.645
1.44
0.79-2.63
0.230
6-month mortality Yes No
278 (265)
24(13) 167(87)
8(9)
79(91)
0.71
0.30-1.64
0.416
0.59
0.23-1.52
0.277
6-month MBI, mean+SD
246 (234)
71.1+31.2
69.3+33.5
NR+ NR
NS†
NR+ NR
0.295†
Abbreviations: LOS: length of stay; MBI: modified Barthel Index; NS: Not significant; NR: Not relevant Results are expressed as n(%) or mean+SD # N=sample size in univariate analysis; n=sample size in multivariate analysis ^ LOS >/<11days based on the average LOS for the patients in GRM unit ∞Adjusted for age, gender, race, dementia, depression, severity of illness, Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of prescribed drugs and admission MBI †‡ Comparisons between participants with and without weight change data during admission, performed by linear regression (†) and logistic regression (‡) (reference group: participants with weight loss data) * Participants without weight change data during admission significantly associated with 6-month mortality with and without adjustment of covariates,
p<0.05 + Β(unstandardised coefficient) from linear regression, participants without weight change data during admission had significantly longer LOS and lower
6-month MBI score
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
237
7.3.6 Recognition of malnutrition and referral to d ietitian for
treatment
A total of 97 participants were malnourished as defined by SGA on admission. Figure
7-2 shows that 65% of these malnourished participants were not recognised by the
nurses as ‘at risk’ during routine screening. Of all the malnourished participants, 46%
were not seen by a dietitian. Among those seen by a dietitian for treatment of
malnutrition, 28 were referred by the nurses through the nutrition screening protocol,
and the remaining 24 by the doctors based on standard routine care in the hospital
(described in section 2.2.4.1).
Amongst the 52 participants who experienced weight loss of >1% per week during
admission, 38 were not seen by a dietitian. Of the 38 participants not seen, 33 were
identified by the nurses as ‘not at risk’ through routine admission screening, and 31
were defined by SGA as well-nourished on admission.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
238
Figure 7-2: Flowchart of malnourished participants (defined by SGA) on
admission and the corresponding malnutrition risk routinely screened by
nursing staff and the subsequent referral to dietitian
Timeliness of dietitian referral
Amongst the 76 participants who were referred to a dietitian by doctors or nurses
based on standard routine care (refer to section 2.2.4.1), the median time for referral
was two days (range 0-17 days) after admission. The median time for referral for
malnourished (1 day, range 0-17 days; n=52) and well-nourished (2 days, range 0-12
days; n=24) participants on admission (defined by SGA) did not differ significantly
(p=0.36, p>0.05). Participants who had weight loss >1% per week (n=13) during
hospitalisation were referred to a dietitian at a median of 3 days (range 0-14 days)
after admission, compared to a median of 1.5 days (range 0-12 days) for those who
experienced <1% weight loss per week (n=28). This difference was also not
statistically significantly (p=0.35, p>0.05).
Malnourished n=97
Not at risk* n=61
At risk* n=34
Not screened n=2
Dietitian n=22^
No dietitian n=39
Dietitian n=28^
No dietitian n=6
Dietitian n=2 ̂
*Malnutrition risk routinely screened by nursing staff using the TTSH NST ^ Total malnourished participants seen by dietitian = 52 (54%)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
239
7.4 Discussion
7.4.1 Weight loss during hospitalisation
Weight change data were only available for 69% of the 281 participants. Close to half
(44%) of this group experienced weight loss during hospitalisation and a quarter
(27%) had weight loss (>1% per week) that was clinically significant. Both the well-
nourished and malnourished participants (defined by SGA) on admission experienced
similar prevalence of weight loss during hospitalisation (45% versus 43%
respectively, p=1.00) and had similar magnitude of weight loss (median 1.2kg and
0.9kg, respectively, p=0.84).
Comparison with other studies using weight loss as the criterion
Relatively few studies have monitored the changes in nutritional status of patients
during an admission (refer to Table 1-8). Only three studies59, 69, 137 reported using
weight loss as the criterion to determine the nutritional decline in hospital patients.
Gariballa et al (1998)69, McWhirter and Pennington (1994)59, and Corish et al
(2000)137 used weight loss as the criterion to determine decline in nutritional status in
their studies among both elderly (n=201, mean age 78 years)69 and general
hospitalised patients (n=500, age >16 years59; n=594, age 16-64 years137) in the UK.
Only 22-34% of the patients admitted were followed-up with their weight status upon
discharge in these three studies compared to 69% in the present study.
The proportion of participants who experienced weight loss (44%) in the present
study was close to the lower range reported in these three UK studies (43-75%). The
frequency of weight loss (44%) was generally lower than that reported by Gariballa et
al69 (66%). The mean percentage weight loss during hospitalisation from baseline
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
240
admission weight reported in these three studies ranged from 1.8%69 (in four weeks)
to 5.4%59 (duration not reported) compared to 2.1% (median 9 days) in the present
study.
The length of hospital stay, participants’ age and diagnoses are all likely to have an
impact on the weight change over an admission, but were not taken into consideration
in these three studies. Only Corish et al137 reported the median LOS (12 days),
whereas Gariballa et al69 repeated the weight measures after two weeks and four
weeks of admission instead of at discharge. McWhirter and Pennington59 did not
report the average LOS, however did report that weight change data were available
for 22% of participants. In the present study, when the percentage weight loss was
adjusted for the LOS (median 9 days), only 27% of participants showed weight loss
>1% per week that was clinically significant. This was much lower than that reported
in the three UK studies (43-75%). This was not surprising as the present study
included more participants regardless of their LOS, excluded participants who were
critically and terminally ill, and the weight loss criterion was more definitive.
Relationship with nutritional status on admission
Three studies59, 88, 137 compared the prevalence of weight loss during admission
between well-nourished and malnourished adult patients. Braunschweig et al (2000)88
monitored the nutritional status of 404 general hospitalised adults in the US who were
admitted for at least seven days (mean age 54 years, average LOS 17 days) based on
SGA and weight loss of any quantity (not defined in study). They showed that the
decline was more prevalent among well-nourished patients (38%) than in moderately
(20%) or severely malnourished patients (33%). Likewise, Corish et al (2000)137 in
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
241
their study of 594 adult patients (16-64 years) also showed that normal weight
patients (66%) were more likely to experience weight loss than malnourished patients
(48%). In contrast, McWhirter and Pennington59 reported that more malnourished
patients (75%) experienced weight loss than those who were well-nourished (39%) in
their study of 500 adult patients (>16 years). These results were different from the
present study where the prevalence of weight loss was similar regardless of admission
nutritional status (well-nourished 45% vs malnourished 43%).
A plausible explanation for the difference between the present study and the studies
by Braunschweig et al88 and Corish et al137, is that older patients in the present study
are more vulnerable to weight loss regardless of their nutritional status on admission.
Another potential factor could be differences in nutrition policy and interventions.
However the details for dietitian referral and treatment were not described in both the
studies88,137. The present study reported that 73% of participants with weight loss >1%
per week during admission were not seen by a dietitian. The referral to a dietitian was
also made later (median 3 days after admission) for those who experienced significant
weight loss compared to those who did not (median 1.5 days after admission). The
effectiveness of nutrition interventions is also important in influencing the change in
nutritional status; however this was not evaluated in the present study. Moreover, the
LOS (median 9 days) in the study was relatively short for any potential benefits of
nutrition intervention to be evident and affect weight measures. Lastly, the studies
compared here were all conducted more than 10 years ago when awareness of
malnutrition might have been poorer amongst healthcare professionals, resulting in
the higher prevalence of nutritional decline than the present study.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
242
Challenges of using weight loss as a criterion
Weight loss of >5% in 30 days or >10% over six months have been considered
clinically significant26, 235, 236 and associated with poor clinical outcomes233, 237.
However due to the relatively short hospital stay (average LOS of GRM patients is 11
days) of participants in the present study, weight loss >1% per week was considered
clinically significant236, 366, and used to define decline in nutritional status (refer to
Chapter 2 section 2.2.4.2). However, potential challenges with the use of weight to
monitor changes in nutritional status over a hospital admission were discovered. .
Firstly, it was difficult to weigh acutely ill hospitalised elderly patients both on
admission and upon discharge. This is shown to be true in the present study (69%
success rate) and in the literature113, 120, 203. The incomplete weight change data would
potentially underestimate the prevalence of weight loss during admission. Secondly,
weight changes during acute illness could be reflective of changes in fluid status and
balance, such as dehydration or fluid retention. It is possible that the extent of
nutrition-related weight loss might have been underestimated among patients who had
been admitted with dehydration in the present study.
The median crude weight loss in the present study was relatively small (1.0kg, range
0.1-6.8kg) compared to the diurnal variation of body weight due to fluid retention,
which can be as much as 2 kg233. Although the absolute weight loss was relatively
small, this was equivalent to median percentage weight loss of 2.1% over nine days
(median 1.5% per week) in the hospitalised elderly (mean baseline admission weight
50kg). It has been suggested that 5% loss of usual weight within six months increases
the risk of nutrition-related complications in elderly patients268. Therefore, the extent
of weight loss shown in the present study (2.1%) could signify a problem that would
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
243
require closer attention by the healthcare team. Despite the difficulties in obtaining
weight loss data in clinical practice it is still an important parameter to monitor in
hospitalised patients as it is quick, inexpensive and can be measured by anyone.
Factors associated with weight loss
The factors contributing to weight loss caused by loss of fat and muscle mass shown
in the present study are unclear. Being on thickened fluids at admission was the only
factor associated with weight loss. No other baseline characteristics, including
nutritional status on admission, have been identified in this association. It is plausible
that factors during hospitalisation are more likely to influence the change in
nutritional status. Routine hospital practices such as withholding meals due to
diagnostic procedures, delay in initiating nutrition support, and little emphasis on
nutrition education among nursing and medical staff, could adversely affect patient
nutritional status58,26. Inadequate dietary intake during hospitalisation has been
reported in 21% of elderly patients27 and may be the main contributor of weight loss
observed in the present study.
Since older adults are vulnerable to nutritional decline, they are equally at risk of
experiencing weight loss during hospitalisation regardless of their nutritional status on
admission. Therefore all hospitalised older adults should be closely monitored to
reduce the risk of decline in nutritional status. However, since weight was available
for only two-thirds of participants, an alternative parameter must be sought for those
whom weight measure is not possible (e.g. bedbound patients).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
244
7.4.2 Decline in arm anthropometry during hospitali sation All arm anthropometric measures (on admission and upon discharge) were available
for 88% participants compared to only 69% for weight. All mean arm anthropometric
measures, except mean CAMA, were significantly lower upon discharge compared to
admission (median LOS 9 days) (Table 7-1). As CAMA is a derivative measure for
lean body mass from MAC and TSF, its value is dependent on the corresponding
changes in both measurements. However among patients who experienced decline in
their anthropometric measurements, CAMA was able to detect the change with the
highest median percentage change (4.9%) from baseline compared to the other arm
anthropometric indicators for somatic protein reserves (i.e. MAC, MAMC and
MAMA; 2.1-4.5%). The present study demonstrated that CAMA was best able to
detect loss of lean body mass compared to the other arm measurements, as it is a
measure only of lean muscle mass and excludes non-muscle mass such as bone and
fat mass286.
Among all the anthropometric measurements taken at admission and discharge, TSF
(which measures the subcutaneous fat and is an indirect measure of total body fat)
showed the greatest mean percentage decline (9.1%). This is consistent with the
metabolic response during starvation (without stress) when subcutaneous fat stores are
preferentially metabolised while the loss of muscle is much slower in the adaptive
response to preserve lean body mass377. The different responses of the body fat and
muscle changes that reflected the nutritional decline of the older adults in the present
study could imply that the changes in nutritional status was mainly related to
starvation, rather than stress hypermetabolism during hospitalisation377.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
245
From the literature reviewed, no other studies have looked at the change in CAMA
and TSF during hospitalisation and compared the magnitude of decline with these
anthropometric measures.
7.4.3 Decline in nutritional status during hospital isation and
clinical outcomes
Decline in nutritional status, defined by weight loss >1% per week of admission, was
independently associated with two and a half times greater risk of discharge to higher
level care. In addition, participants with decline in CAMA were three times more
likely to have longer LOS (>11 days). From the literature reviewed, all the studies that
had monitored the change in nutritional status of patients during hospitalisation (refer
to section 1.5.5 and Table 1-8) did not analyse the impact of its decline on clinical
outcomes. The present study demonstrated that nutritional deterioration during
admission predicts discharge to higher level care and longer LOS (>11days) (refer to
section 7.3.3, and Tables 7-4 & 7-5).
One possible reason for weight loss >1% per week to be predictive of less outcomes
than CAMA could be related to type two error since the sample size was smaller for
the weight loss group. The lack of influence from the decline in nutritional status on
other clinical outcomes could potentially be attributed by the relatively short LOS of
the present study sample (n=193, median 9 days).
Data from the present study suggest that any decline in CAMA is as important as
weight loss of >1% per week due to its associations with clinical outcomes. Since
weight loss may reflect either fluid, fat or muscle loss, or all of them in combination,
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
246
a cut-off i.e. >1% per week or >10% in 6 months must be applied to define its clinical
significance. Any decline in CAMA may be more indicative than weight loss in
defining nutritional decline as the former indirectly measures muscle loss. CAMA has
been shown to be predictive of clinical outcomes in other studies229, 277, 287, but none
had evaluated the association of reduced CAMA with outcomes among hospitalised
older adults.
7.4.4 Absence of recorded admission or discharge we ight, and
association with nutritional status and clinical ou tcomes
Participants who had their admission weight taken, but not their discharge weight
(n=45) had higher malnutrition rates (defined by SGA) on admission and had lower 6-
month MBI (refer to section 7.3.4). This was similarly reported in those without
admission weight (n=43, previously discussed in sections 4.5.5 and 5.4.5). It is
therefore clinically important for patients without admission or discharge weight to be
assessed and monitored using alternative methods so that they can be identified early
for further assessment and receive any potential interventions.
Participants who did not have weight change data (n=88) were not significantly
different in their nutritional status and clinical outcomes to those with weight change
data (n=193). Considering those without admission weight (n=43) and those with
admission but without discharge weight (n=45) had poorer nutritional status and
clinical outcomes, it may appear unusual that the participants without weight change
data did not present likewise. This finding is hard to explain, but one plausible reason
could be the varying changes in the clinical and nutritional characteristics during
admission that might have influenced the outcomes observed.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
247
7.4.5 Alternative measure for monitoring nutritiona l status during
admission
Weight changes during admission could be reflective of changes in hydration status
rather than specific changes in lean body mass or nutritional status. It is not possible
to isolate the loss of fluid, fat or lean mass from weight loss alone. However other
nutrition parameters also pose limitations.
Composite measures such as the MNA may not be suitable as many of the questions
relate to characteristics associated with acute illness and tend to improve when
patient’s clinical conditions improve. This is the main reason for the MNA not being a
discharge measurement in this study. The SGA was shown in this study to be less
useful than anthropometric measures for short hospital stay (median LOS 9 days) as it
only detected 4% of participants with change in the SGA status during admission. The
SGA may be more useful in detecting nutritional changes over a longer duration97.
CAMA, which indirectly measures lean body mass, was shown to be a useful
alternative measure for monitoring nutrition status. CAMA can be easier to measure
in patients whom weight cannot be obtained i.e. those who are bedbound. This was
reflected in the present study by its higher completion rate than weight (88% vs 69%),
and its ability to assess 84% of those without weight change measurements. Although
CAMA was only able to identify 41% of those with significant weight loss, it was
best suited to detect decline in lean muscle mass. Therefore CAMA may be an
alternative measure to monitor change in nutritional status during a hospital admission
when weight is not available on admission. CAMA can also be considered as an
additional routine measurement when weight is available.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
248
7.4.6 Recognition of malnutrition and referral to d ietitian for
treatment
Only one-third of the malnourished participants were recognised as at risk of
malnutrition by the nurses during routine care. This low recognition was associated
with the poor sensitivity of the TTSH NST when completed by the nurses, as
previously discussed in Chapter 6 (refer to section 6.4.1). However more than half
(54%) of the malnourished participants were subsequently referred by the nurses or
doctors and were seen by a dietitian during admission. The level of referral in the
present study was higher than that reported in an earlier study conducted in 2004 at
the same hospital among younger medical and surgical patients (16% of malnourished
participants seen by a dietitian)60.
The relatively higher referral rate of malnourished patients could be related to the
implementation of a hospital-wide nutrition screening protocol170 after the previous
malnutrition study in the same hospital was conducted60. Improvements in appropriate
dietetic referrals (from 56% to 71% over five years) for malnourished patients was
achieved with the introduction of a nutrition screening tool in UK hospitals135. The
higher level of referral to a dietitian in the present study could also be influenced by
the heightened awareness of this ongoing study by the staff and facilitated by the
increased presence of the dietitian (YP Lim) in the wards. Close to two-thirds of the
referrals to the dietitian (63%) were actually by doctors. This highlights the important
complementary role of the doctor in helping to identify patients at risk of malnutrition
who require nutritional intervention, rather than relying solely on the hospital
nutrition screening policy.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
249
Almost three-quarters of the participants (73%) presenting with significant weight
loss (>1% per week) during admission were not seen by a dietitian. This was likely
contributed by a large proportion (87%) of these participants being screened on
admission as ‘not at risk’ by the nursing staff using the TTSH NST, and also 82%
were defined by SGA as well-nourished on admission. This finding highlighted the
inadequacy of the current nutrition policy to identify patients who are at risk of
nutritional decline during admission.
Most studies have focused on the nutrition screening protocol upon hospital
admission. There is relatively weaker focus on the nutrition protocol for
identification, prevention, and treatment of decline in nutritional status during
hospitalisation. This continual assessment and monitoring is particularly important in
older adults who are susceptible to nutritional deterioration during hospitalisation as
shown in this study (refer to section 7.3.1).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
250
7.5 Conclusion
There was a decline in anthropometric measurements from admission to discharge
(median LOS 9 days) in hospitalised older adults. Twenty-seven per cent of
hospitalised older adults experienced a decline in nutritional status defined by weight
loss of >1% per week. Both well-nourished and malnourished participants were
equally prone to weight loss during admission. This level of nutritional decline in the
present study was lower than that reported in other studies. It could be related to the
shorter LOS and the use of different assessment methods to determine change in
nutritional status.
CAMA best detected decline in lean body mass (4.9%) compared to the other
anthropometric measures, and was more easily measured (88%) than weight loss
(69%). Decline in CAMA was comparable to weight loss (>1% per week) in
predicting clinical outcomes. CAMA was predictive of both LOS (>11 days) and
discharge to higher level care, whilst weight loss >1% per week was only associated
with the latter. This evidence suggests that CAMA could potentially be a useful
alternative nutrition parameter for monitoring nutritional status of older adults during
hospital admission when weight measurement is not available on admission.
The referral rate of malnourished older patients to a dietitian for treatment in in Tan
Tock Seng Hospital (54% of malnourished participants) was better than other studies.
However, despite the existence of a hospital nutrition screening policy, the level of
malnutrition recognition and referral to a dietitian remained unsatisfactory. Of the
malnourished patients on admission identified by SGA, two-thirds (65%) failed to be
identified through screening and nearly half (46%) were not referred to and seen by a
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
251
dietitian. Most of the patients with a decline in nutritional status during admission
(73%) were also not seen by a dietitian.
The present study has shown that malnutrition on admission and decline in nutritional
status are common in Singapore hospitalised older adults. However, the existing
routine care and nutrition policy are inadequate to address these issues. It is therefore
important for appropriate nutrition policies and protocols to be implemented so that
all hospitalised older adults are monitored closely during hospitalisation. Early
referrals to a dietitian for nutritional intervention could be made to minimise the
nutritional decline during hospital admission and follow-up nutrition monitoring and
evaluation post-discharge could be planned.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
252
8 Study significance, strengths, limitations and
recommendations
8.1 Overview of study significance and outcomes Older adults, especially those in acute care settings, are vulnerable to malnutrition.
The high prevalence of malnutrition has been recognised as an important problem in
hospitalised older adults due to the frequent associations with adverse clinical
consequences. However it was not clear if these relationships were influenced by
other confounders such as cognition, comorbidity and functional status, as few studies
had adjusted for these factors. Acutely ill older adults are also exceptionally prone to
nutritional decline but limited reports have studied this change during hospitalisation
and its impact on clinical outcomes. Despite the high prevalence, malnutrition
remains under-recognised and under-treated. Although many screening and
assessment tools are available, there is no universally accepted method for defining
malnutrition risk and nutritional status. Evidence on malnutrition is lacking in the
rapidly ageing Singapore population which has unique socio-demographic
characteristics and no tools for nutritional evaluation have been validated in
Singapore.
This study was therefore planned to characterise the hospitalised elderly in a
Singapore acute hospital and to describe the extent and impact of admission
malnutrition. It also aimed to identify suitable methods for nutritional screening and
assessment, and to examine changes in nutritional status during admission and the
impact on clinical outcomes.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
253
This is the first study of its kind in older Singaporean adults. On admission
malnutrition prevalence was 35% defined using the SGA. Decline in nutritional status
during admission was prevalent (27%) regardless of the admission nutritional status.
The SGA was the best assessment tool as it predicted a two- to three-fold increased
risk of LOS>11days, 3-months readmission and 6-months mortality, independent of
patient, cognitive, comorbidity, and functional covariates. The TTSH NST was the
best screening tool with good diagnostic and prognostic performance (key findings
described further in section 8.2)
The key strengths of this study lie in the longitudinal design with adjustment for a
comprehensive range of covariates in the evaluation of the relationship between
nutritional status and clinical outcomes; the consecutive sampling framework with a
good sample size and excellent retention at 6months; validation of nutrition screening
and assessment tools in the same sample population; and high reliability of data with
single, blinded assessors (described further in section 8.3). Although there were
limitations in the study (described further in section 8.4), they too contributed
important findings to be considered when designing future studies.
This thesis contributed towards a better understanding and knowledge of the
characteristics, nutrition and health risks of Singaporean older adults in an acute care
setting. It provided an evidence base for the clinical application of nutrition screening
and assessment tools (described further in section 8.5.1). This can assist stakeholders
to appropriately plan, develop and evaluate nutrition-related services and programs,
with the aim of improving the care and clinical outcomes. Areas for future research
were also suggested (described further in section 8.5.2).
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
254
8.2 Summary of key findings
8.2.1 Research Question 1: What are the sociodemogr aphic
indicators, nutritional, appetite, chewing, swallow ing status,
and clinical characteristics, according to age, of older adults
upon hospital admission?
This study comprised 281 participants from three geriatric wards in a Singapore acute
hospital, with a mean age (+SD) of 81.3 (+7.6) years. They were predominantly
Chinese (83%), and community-dwellers (97%); representative of the population.
Cognitive impairment was prevalent in 33% of the participants, 62% reported weight
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
287
Table A-31: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against mortality at 6-month (n=266, sample from univariate analysis) ....................................................................307 Table A-32: Multivariate logistic regression of CAMA against mortality at 6-month (n=264, sample from univariate analysis) ....................................................................307 Table A-33: Predictive power of the four malnutrition definitions against LOS>/=11 days 308 Table A-34: Predictive power of the four malnutrition definitions against discharge to higher level care ..........................................................................................................309 Table A-35: Predictive power of the four malnutrition definitions against readmission at 3-month...................................................................................................................310 Table A-36: Predictive power of the four malnutrition definitions against mortality at 6-month.......................................................................................................................311 Table A-37: Medline search history.............................................................................312 TTSH Medical Board Paper on TTSH NST.................................................................313 Modified Severity of Illness Index, Wong et al 2004...................................................317 Patient Information Sheet ............................................................................................318 Consent Form..............................................................................................................320 Data Forms..................................................................................................................321 Presentation abstract 1: Lack of admission weight measure is predictive of mortality at 6-month...................................................................................................................325 Presentation abstract 2: Change in nutritional status of older adults during hospitalisation .............................................................................................................326 Presentation poster 2: Change in nutritional status of older adults during hospitalisation .............................................................................................................327 Presenation abstract 3: Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................328 Presentation poster 3: Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................329 Presentation Abstract 4: Subjective Global Assessment is clinically more useful than Mini Nutritional Assessment in hospitalised older adults.............................................329 Presentation Abstract 4: Subjective Global Assessment is clinically more useful than Mini Nutritional Assessment in hospitalised older adults.............................................330 Presentation poster 4: Subjective Global Assessment is clinically more useful than Mini Nutritional Assessment in hospitalised older adults.............................................331 Presentation abstract 5: Evaluating the validity of four nutritional screening tools in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................331 Presentation abstract 5: Evaluating the validity of four nutritional screening tools in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................332 Presentation poster 5: Evaluating the validity of four nutritional screening tools in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................333 Presentation abstract 6: Evaluating the validity of a nutritional screening tool in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................334 Presentation poster 6: Evaluating the validity of a nutritional screening tool in hospitalised older adults ..............................................................................................335 Presentation abstract 7: Nutritional status of geriatric patients in a Singapore acute hospital .......................................................................................................................336 Presentation poster 7: Nutritional status of geriatric patients in a Singapore acute hospital .......................................................................................................................337
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
288
Table A-1: Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)
A. History
1. Weight change
Overall loss in past 6 months
Amount = kg
Percentage loss = %
Change in past 2 weeks Increase / No change/ Decrease
2. Dietary intake change (relative to
normal)
No change
Change: Duration weeks
Suboptimal solid diet / Full liquid diet /
Hypocaloric liquids / Starvation
3. Gastrointestinal symptoms (that
persisted for >2 weeks)
None
Nausea / Vomiting / Diarrhoea
4. Functional capacity No dysfunction (e.g. full capacity)
Dysfunction: Duration weeks
Working subopitmally / Ambulatory /
Bedridden
5. Disease and its relation to nutritional
requirements
Primary diagnosis:
Metabolic demand:
No stress / Low / Moderate / High stress
B. Physical
Loss of subcutaneous fat (triceps, chest)
Muscle wasting (quadriceps, deltoids)
Ankle oedema
Sacral oedema
Ascites
Normal/ Mild/ Moderate/ Severe
Normal/ Mild/ Moderate/ Severe
Normal/ Mild/ Moderate/ Severe
Normal/ Mild/ Moderate/ Severe
Normal/ Mild/ Moderate/ Severe
C. SGA rating A= Well-nourished
B=moderately (or suspected of
being)malnourished
C= severely malnourished
(Detsky et al, 1987235)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
2 Has the patient lost weight within the last 3 months? 3 Has the patient had a reduced dietary intake in the last week? 4 Is the patient severely ill? (e.g. in intensive therapy) Yes: If the answer is “Yes” to any question, the screening in Table 1b is performed No: if the answer is “No” to all questions, the patient is re-screened at weekly intervals. If the patient e.g. is scheduled for a major operation, a preventive nutritional care plan is considered to avoid the associated risk status. Table A-5b: NRS 2002- Final screening
Impaired nutritional status Severity of disease (increase in requirements) Absent Score 0
Normal nutritional status Absent Score 0
Normal nutritional requirements
Mild Score 1
Wt loss >5% in 3 months or Food intake below 50-75% of normal requirement in preceding week
Mild Score 1
Hip fractures, chronic patients, in particular with acute complications:cirrhosis, COPD. Chronic hemodialysis, diabetes, oncology
Moderate Score 2
Wt loss >5% in 2 months or BMI 18.5-20.5 + impaired general conditions or Food intake 25-60% of normal requirements in preceding week
Moderate Score 2
Major abdominal surgery, stroke. Severe pneumonia, hematologic malignancy
Severe Score 3
Wt loss >5% in 1 month (>15% in 3 months) or BMI <18.5 + impaired general conditions or Food intake 0-25% of normal requirements in preceding week
Severe Score 3
Head injury, bone marrow transplantation, intensive care patients (APACHE>10)
Score: + Score: = Total score Age If >70 years: add 1 to total score above = age-adjusted total score Score >3: the patient is nutritionally ar risk and a nutritional care plan is initiated Score <3: weekly rescreening of the patient. If the patient e.g. is scheduled for a major operation, a preventive nutritional care plan is considered to avoid the associated risk status. (Kondrup et al, 2003166)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
293
Table A-6: Mini Nutritional Assessment – Short-Form (MNA-SF)
Screening
A. Has food intake declined over the past 3 months due to loss of appetite, digestive
problems, chewing or swallowing difficulties
• Severe loss of appetite = 0
• Moderate loss of appetite = 1
• No loss of appetite = 2
B. Weight loss during the last 3 months
Weight loss greater than 3kg = 0
• Does not know = 1
• Weight loss between 1 and 3 kg = 2
• No weight loss = 3
C. Mobility
• Bed or chairbound = 0
• Able to get out of bed/chair but does not go out = 1
• Goes out = 2
D. Has suffered psychological stress or acute disease
• Yes = 0
• No = 1
E. Neuropsychological problems
• Severe dementia or depression = 0
• Mild dementia = 1
• No psychological problem = 2
F. Body mass index (BMI)
• <19 = 0
• 19-<21 = 1
• 21 -<23 = 2
• >23 = 3
Screening Score: (subtotal max 14 points)
Score <11 = possible malnutrition, continue assessment
(Rubenstein et al, 2001213)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
Step 3: Acute disease effect score If patient is acutely ill and there has been or is likely to be no nutritional intake for >5 days
2
Step 4: Overall risk of malnutrition Low Risk – Routine clinical care Medium Risk - Observe High Risk – Treat
Total score 0 1 >2
(Stratton et al, 2004198)
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
296
Table A-9: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against LOS>11 days (n=224)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished* .895 .007 2.448 1.273 4.709
Age -.008 .747 .992 .945 1.041
Gender (Female vs Male) -.082 .794 .922 .499 1.702
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.419 .301 .658 .297 1.455
Dementia (Yes vs No)* -1.528 .000 .217 .092 .511
Depression (Yes vs No)* -.836 .022 .433 .211 .888
Total number prescribed drugs -.098 .099 .907 .807 1.019
Severity of Illness Score .385 .390 1.470 .611 3.537
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .105 .524 1.111 .805 1.533
Admission MBI* -.028 .000 .972 .959 .986
Constant 1.906 .340 6.724
SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; LOS= Length of Stay; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-10: Multivariate logistic regression of MNA againts LOS>11days (n=224)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
MNA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .080 .844 1.084 .487 2.410
Age -.009 .701 .991 .944 1.039
Gender (Female vs Male) -.120 .695 .887 .486 1.618
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.378 .343 .685 .314 1.496
Dementia (Yes vs No)* -1.415 .001 .243 .106 .556
Depression (Yes vs No) -.700 .054 .496 .243 1.013
Total number prescribed drugs -.102 .081 .903 .805 1.013
Severity of Illness Score .331 .452 1.392 .588 3.294
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .132 .417 1.141 .830 1.569
Admission MBI* -.030 .000 .971 .957 .985
Constant 2.329 .237 10.271
MNA=Mini-Nutritional Assessment; LOS= Length of Stay; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.195; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
297
Table A-11: Multivariate logistic regression of BMI against LOS>11days (n=224)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
BMI – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .723 .060 2.061 .971 4.376
Age -.011 .665 .989 .943 1.038
Gender (Female vs Male) -.066 .832 .936 .510 1.719
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.383 .336 .682 .312 1.489
Dementia (Yes vs No)* -1.584 .000 .205 .087 .483
Depression (Yes vs No)* -.791 .031 .453 .221 .929
Total number prescribed drugs -.096 .102 .908 .809 1.019
Severity of Illness Score .340 .444 1.406 .588 3.360
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .149 .354 1.160 .847 1.589
Admission MBI* -.028 .000 .973 .959 .987
Constant 2.040 .303 7.694
BMI=Body Mass Index; LOS= Length of Stay; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.213; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-12: Multivariate logistic regression of CAMA against LOS>11days (n=224)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
CAMA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .336 .342 1.399 .700 2.796
Age -.010 .682 .990 .944 1.039
Gender (Female vs Male) -.138 .654 .871 .477 1.592
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.445 .271 .641 .290 1.415
Dementia (Yes vs No)* -1.430 .001 .239 .104 .548
Depression (Yes vs No)* -.712 .046 .490 .243 .988
Total number prescribed drugs -.102 .084 .903 .805 1.014
Severity of Illness Score .322 .464 1.380 .583 3.268
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .128 .426 1.137 .829 1.559
Admission MBI* -.029 .000 .972 .958 .986
Constant 2.345 .232 10.437
CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; LOS= Length of Stay; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.199; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
298
Table A-13: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against discharge to higher level care (n=223)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished -.202 .575 .817 .403 1.656
Age .000 .988 1.000 .953 1.050
Gender (Female vs Male)* -.942 .004 .390 .204 .744
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.265 .544 .767 .326 1.808
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.778 .071 .459 .197 1.070
Depression (Yes vs No) -.547 .177 .579 .262 1.280
Total number prescribed drugs -.112 .076 .894 .791 1.012
Severity of Illness Score -.830 .140 .436 .145 1.313
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index -.013 .937 .987 .713 1.365
Admission MBI* -.021 .005 .980 .966 .994
Constant 3.683 .104 39.764
SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-14: Multivariate logistic regression of MNA against discharge to higher level care (n=223)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
MNA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished -.476 .305 .621 .250 1.544
Age -.002 .923 .998 .950 1.048
Gender (Female vs Male)* -.929 .005 .395 .207 .754
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.279 .524 .756 .320 1.787
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.766 .076 .465 .200 1.083
Depression (Yes vs No) -.489 .234 .613 .275 1.371
Total number prescribed drugs -.108 .085 .897 .793 1.015
Severity of Illness Score -.824 .145 .439 .145 1.328
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .019 .911 1.019 .731 1.420
Admission MBI* -.022 .003 .978 .964 .993
Constant 3.824 .094 45.770
MNA=Mini-Nutritional Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.195; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
299
Table A-15: Multivariate logistic regression of BMI against discharge to higher level care (n=223)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
BMI – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .254 .522 1.289 .593 2.804
Age .000 .995 1.000 .952 1.050
Gender (Female vs Male)* -.923 .005 .397 .208 .759
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.276 .526 .759 .323 1.781
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.848 .057 .428 .179 1.024
Depression (Yes vs No) -.612 .135 .542 .243 1.209
Total number prescribed drugs -.108 .085 .897 .793 1.015
Severity of Illness Score -.862 .128 .422 .139 1.282
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index -.018 .912 .982 .710 1.358
Admission MBI* -.019 .010 .981 .967 .995
Constant 3.608 .113 36.882
BMI=Body Mass Index; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.213; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-16: Multivariate logistic regression of CAMA against discharge to higher level care (n=223)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
CAMA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .138 .722 1.148 .537 2.452
Age .001 .973 1.001 .954 1.051
Gender (Female vs Male)* -.945 .004 .389 .203 .743
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.300 .498 .741 .311 1.763
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.795 .067 .452 .193 1.057
Depression (Yes vs No) -.590 .146 .554 .250 1.229
Total number prescribed drugs -.109 .084 .897 .793 1.015
Severity of Illness Score -.838 .137 .433 .144 1.304
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index -.029 .860 .971 .703 1.342
Admission MBI* -.019 .009 .981 .967 .995
Constant 3.597 .114 36.473
CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.199; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
300
Table A-17: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against readmission at 3-month (n=222)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .399 .225 1.491 .782 2.842
Age .016 .493 1.017 .970 1.066
Gender (Female vs Male) -.189 .540 .828 .452 1.515
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .812 .071 2.253 .932 5.443
Dementia (Yes vs No) .226 .543 1.254 .605 2.601
Depression (Yes vs No) .579 .082 1.784 .929 3.426
Total number prescribed drugs .099 .075 1.104 .990 1.231
Severity of Illness Score .260 .543 1.297 .561 2.996
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .016 .919 1.016 .750 1.375
Admission MBI -.008 .224 .992 .979 1.005
Constant -3.518 .076 .030
SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-18: Multivariate logistic regression of MNA against readmission at 3-month (n=222)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
MNA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .441 .267 1.555 .714 3.386
Age .019 .428 1.019 .972 1.069
Gender (Female vs Male) -.216 .484 .806 .440 1.475
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .838 .063 2.311 .956 5.589
Dementia (Yes vs No) .220 .554 1.246 .601 2.587
Depression (Yes vs No) .547 .107 1.728 .889 3.360
Total number prescribed drugs .094 .090 1.098 .986 1.224
Severity of Illness Score .245 .566 1.278 .553 2.951
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index -.001 .993 .999 .733 1.361
Admission MBI -.007 .285 .993 .980 1.006
Constant -3.606 .070 .027
MNA=Mini-Nutritional Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.195; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
301
Table A-19: Multivariate logistic regression of BMI against readmission at 3-month (n=222)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
BMI – Malnourished vs Well-nourished -.321 .411 .725 .338 1.558
Age .016 .497 1.016 .970 1.065
Gender (Female vs Male) -.229 .459 .796 .434 1.458
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .824 .066 2.280 .947 5.493
Dementia (Yes vs No) .282 .452 1.326 .635 2.771
Depression (Yes vs No)* .677 .042 1.969 1.025 3.782
Total number prescribed drugs .092 .095 1.096 .984 1.221
Severity of Illness Score .245 .567 1.278 .552 2.956
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .040 .794 1.041 .773 1.401
Admission MBI -.011 .089 .989 .976 1.002
Constant -3.178 .108 .042
BMI=Body Mass Index; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.213; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-20: Multivariate logistic regression of CAMA against readmission at 3-month (n=222)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
CAMA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .029 .935 1.029 .512 2.069
Age .016 .513 1.016 .969 1.065
Gender (Female vs Male) -.204 .506 .815 .446 1.489
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .816 .072 2.261 .930 5.502
Dementia (Yes vs No) .231 .533 1.260 .609 2.603
Depression (Yes vs No) .632 .055 1.882 .986 3.590
Total number prescribed drugs .094 .088 1.098 .986 1.224
Severity of Illness Score .244 .567 1.277 .553 2.948
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .042 .782 1.043 .773 1.408
Admission MBI -.010 .150 .991 .978 1.003
Constant -3.328 .092 .036
CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.199; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
302
Table A-21: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against mortality at 6-month (n=224)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .860 .121 2.363 .797 7.006
Age .016 .669 1.017 .943 1.096
Gender (Female vs Male) -.409 .452 .664 .228 1.931
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .287 .724 1.332 .271 6.559
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.512 .436 .599 .165 2.172
Depression (Yes vs No) -.181 .779 .834 .236 2.952
Total number prescribed drugs .018 .856 1.018 .842 1.231
Severity of Illness Score -.394 .614 .674 .146 3.119
CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.199; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
304
Table A-25: Multiple linear regression of SGA against 6- month MBI (n=234)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Variables included in model B Sig. VIF Lower Upper
Admission MBI .738 .000 1.155 .625 .851
Dementia (Yes vs No) -13.490 .000 1.155 -20.142 -6.837
Constant 29.641 .000 - 21.171 38.112
Variables excluded: Age, gender, depression, total number of prescribed drugs, severity of illness score, Charlson’s co-morbidity index, SGA SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.523; Reference group is in bold.
Table A-26: Multiple linear regression of MNA against 6-month MBI (n=234)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Variables included in model B Sig. VIF Lower Upper
Admission MBI .664 .000 1.299 .548 .781
MNA (Malnourished vs Well-nourished) -14.023 .000 1.216 -21.374 -6.673
Dementia (Yes vs No) -11.607 .001 1.182 -18.153 -5.061
Constant 36.798 .000 - 27.745 45.851
Variables excluded: Age, gender, depression, total number of prescribed drugs, severity of illness score, Charlson’s co-morbidity index MNA=Mini-Nutritional Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.545; Reference group is in bold.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
305
Table A-27: Multiple linear regression of BMI against 6-month MBI (n=206)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Variables included in model B Sig. VIF Lower Upper
Admission MBI .763 .000 1.199 .628 .898
Dementia (Yes vs No) -9.794 .008 1.199 -17.039 -2.549
Constant 26.849 .000 - 16.426 37.272
Variables excluded: Age, gender, depression, total number of prescribed drugs, severity of illness score, Charlson’s co-morbidity index, BMI BMI=Body Mass Index; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.475; Reference group is in bold.
Table A-28: Multiple linear regression of CAMA against 6-month MBI (n=232)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Variables included in model B Sig. VIF Lower Upper
Admission MBI .739 .000 1.162 .624 .853
Dementia (Yes vs No) -13.488 .000 1.162 -20.204 -6.773
Constant 29.632 .000 - 21.026 38.238
Variables excluded: Age, gender, depression, total number of prescribed drugs, severity of illness score, Charlson’s co-morbidity index, CAMA CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.522; Reference group is in bold.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
306
Table A-29: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against LOS>11 days (n=267, sample from univariate analysis)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished* .751 .013 2.118 1.170 3.834
Age -.012 .613 .989 .945 1.034
Gender (Female vs Male) .176 .540 1.193 .679 2.096
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.277 .456 .758 .366 1.569
Dementia (Yes vs No)* -1.446 .000 .236 .111 .499
Depression (Yes vs No)* -.793 .017 .452 .236 .868
Total number prescribed drugs .563 .152 1.757 .813 3.795
Severity of Illness Score .061 .682 1.063 .793 1.426
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index -.062 .238 .940 .847 1.042
Admission MBI* -.027 .000 .974 .963 .985
Constant 1.567 .391 4.793 SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; LOS= Length of Stay; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-30: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against readmission at 3-month (n=260, sample from univariate analysis)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished .640 .034 1.896 1.050 3.423
Age .016 .505 1.016 .970 1.063
Gender (Female vs Male) -.231 .427 .794 .449 1.404
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) .684 .101 1.981 .875 4.484
Dementia (Yes vs No) .282 .409 1.326 .678 2.593
Depression (Yes vs No) .791 .012 2.206 1.190 4.088
Total number prescribed drugs .119 .754 1.127 .534 2.375
Severity of Illness Score -.043 .772 .957 .714 1.285
Charlson’s Co-morbidity index .114 .028 1.121 1.013 1.241
Admission MBI -.009 .108 .991 .980 1.002
Constant -2.863 .127 .057 SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
307
Table A-31: Multivariate logistic regression of SGA against mortality at 6-month (n=266, sample from univariate analysis)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)
B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
SGA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished 1.111 .011 3.036 1.284 7.182
Age .026 .421 1.026 .963 1.094
Gender (Female vs Male) -.502 .251 .605 .257 1.425
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.193 .732 .825 .273 2.490
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.381 .462 .684 .248 1.882
Depression (Yes vs No) .287 .551 1.332 .519 3.423
Total number prescribed drugs .167 .772 1.182 .382 3.660
Severity of Illness Score .409 .041 1.505 1.018 2.226
Constant -5.981 .040 .003 SGA=Subjective Global Assessment; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.232; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Table A-32: Multivariate logistic regression of CAMA against mortality at 6-month (n=264, sample from univariate analysis)
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) B Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
CAMA – Malnourished vs Well-nourished -0.907 .038 2.477 1.050 5.844
Age .024 .459 1.024 .961 1.092
Gender (Female vs Male) -.706 .105 .494 .210 1.159
Race (Chinese vs Non-Chinese) -.399 .488 .671 .218 2.071
Dementia (Yes vs No) -.348 .499 .706 .257 1.939
Depression (Yes vs No) .468 .323 1.597 .631 4.041
Total number prescribed drugs .085 .878 1.089 .367 3.231
Severity of Illness Score .006 .033 1.525 1.036 2.247
Constant -5.426 .061 .005 CAMA=corrected Arm Muscle Area; MBI=Modified Barthel Index. R2=0.199; Reference group is in bold. *Significant predictor of outcome, p<0.05
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
308
Table A-33: Predictive power of the four malnutrition definitions against LOS>/=11 days
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
312
Table A-37: Medline search history
The following tables outlined the search terms used for the search of Medline and CINAHL database via EBSCOhost from inception till Mar 2010. Topic: Malnutrition and nutritional assessment of hospitalised older adults
# Search History Results
S1 (MH "Protein-Energy Malnutrition") or (MH "Malnutrition") 9957
S2 ( (MH "Protein-Energy Malnutrition") or (MH "Malnutrition") ) or nutritional status 38869
S3 (hospital*) and (S2) 8282
S4 (MH "Nutrition Assessment+") 17403
S5 S3 and S4 1066
S6
S3 and S4 Limiters - English Language; Human; Age Related: Aged: 65+ years; Languages: English
476
Topic: Malnutrition and nutritional assessment of older adults
# Search History Results
S1 (MH "Protein-Energy Malnutrition") or (MH "Malnutrition") 9957
S2 ( (MH "Protein-Energy Malnutrition") or (MH "Malnutrition") ) or nutritional status 38869
S3 (MH "Nutrition Assessment+") 17403
S4 mini nutritional assessment or subjective global assessment Limiters - English Language; Human;
582
S5 S2 and S4 483
S6 S2 and S4 Narrow by SubjectAge0: - Aged: 65+ years
219
Topic: Malnutrition and nutrition screening in olde r adults
# Query Results
S1 (MH "Protein-Energy Malnutrition") or (MH "Malnutrition") 9957
S2 nutrition* screen* or Nutrition* risk* 1647
S3 *risk assessment or *risk factors or *risk 1281093
S4 S1 and S3 1837
S5 S2 and S4 212
S6 S2 and S4 Limiters - English Language; Human; Age Related: Aged: 65+ years
131
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
313
TTSH Medical Board Paper on TTSH NST
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
314
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
315
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
316
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
317
Modified Severity of Illness Index, Wong et al 2004
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
318
Patient Information Sheet
1. Study Information Protocol Title: Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalised Elderly (Phase 2) Principal Investigator & Contact Details: Lim Yen Peng, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore 308433, Contact Number 6 357 8689 Study Sponsor:
NHG Small Innovation Grant 2. Purpose of the Research Study
You are invited to participate in a research study. It is important to us that you first take time to read through and understand this information sheet. Nevertheless, before you take part in this research study, the study will be explained to you and you will be given the chance to ask questions. After you are properly satisfied that you understand this study, and that you wish to take part in the study, you must sign this informed consent form. You will be given a copy of this consent form to take home with you.
You are invited because you are admitted to one of the elderly wards in Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
This study is carried out to assess the nutritional status of the elderly patients in hospital and to determine if nutritional status is associated with outcomes such as length of stay and hospital readmissions.
This study will recruit 300 subjects from 2 elderly wards in Tan Tock Seng Hospital over a period of 6 months. 3. What procedures will be followed in this study
If you take part in this study, you/your relative will be interviewed on questions pertaining to your nutrition and function status. There will be two interviews at different times. The first will take approximately 10-20 minutes. The second will take approximately 30-45 minutes. We will obtain relevant information from the case-records. We will also take some simple body measurements such as weight, height, knee height, arm measurements, and perform a brief physical examination. The measurements will take approximately 20-30 minutes. Weight and arm measurements will be repeated upon discharge. None of these are invasive to you/your relative.
Blood samples will be analysed as part of this study. This includes lymphocyte count and serum albumin. This will be taken during the standard inpatient care procedures and no extra volume of blood will be taken for the purpose of this study. Additional analysis of serum albumin from the drawn blood samples may be requested at no additional cost to you/your relative.
Your participation in the study will last throughout your hospital stay, regardless of the duration and outcome. You will then be followed up for 6 months upon discharge. At 3-month and 6-month post-discharge, we will contact you/your relative to conduct a brief phone interview which will take approximately 15-20 minutes regarding your functional and general condition.
There will be no interference with the routine nursing or medical management. The doctor-in-charge will continue their usual medical care without interruptions. There will not be any extra medications or therapy given to you/your relative as a result of this study. You/your relative will NOT incur additional cost by participating in this study.
4. Your Responsibilities in This Study
If you agree to participate in this study, you should follow the advice given to you by the study team. You should be prepared to undergo all the assessments that are outlined above. However, you are able
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
319
to choose not to undergo any of the assessments that you do not wish to do. 5. Possible Risks and Side Effects There is NO risk at all for you/your relative in taking part in this study. 6. Possible Benefits from Participating in the Study
There is no assurance you will benefit from participation in this study. However, your
participation in this study may add to the medical knowledge about the nutritional status and
certain issues related to nutrition which would in turn benefit other patients in future.
7. Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may stop participating in this study at any time. Your decision not to take part in this study or to stop your participation will not affect your medical care or any benefits to which you are entitled. If you decide to stop taking part in this study, you should tell the Principal Investigator.
8. Confidentiality of Study and Medical Records
Information collected for this study will be kept confidential. Your records, to the extent of the applicable laws and regulations, will not be made publicly available.
Data collected and entered into the Case Report Forms are the property of Tan Tock Seng Hospital. In the event of any publication regarding this study, your identity will remain confidential.
9. Who To Contact if You Have Questions
If you have questions about this research study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Ms Lim Yen Peng at 6 357 8689.
If you want an independent opinion of your rights as a research subject you may contact the NHG Domain-Specific Research Board Secretariat (Attn: Sujatha Sridhar) at 6471-3266.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
320
Consent Form
Protocol Title: Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalised Elderly (Phase 2)
Principal Investigator & Contact Details: Lim Yen Peng, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore 308433, Contact Number 6 357 8689
I voluntarily consent to take part in this research study. I have fully discussed and understood the purpose and procedures of this study. This study has been explained to me in _________________________________(language)
on ______________ (date) by _______________________________(name of translator).
I have been given enough time to ask any questions that I have about the study, and all my questions have been answered to the best of my doctor’s ability. _________________________ ____________________ ______________ Name of Patient Signature Date _________________________ ____________________ ______________ Name of Next of kin/ Signature Date primary caregiver (if participants are demented and incapable of giving consent) _________________________ ____________________ ______________ Name of Witness Signature Date
Investigator Statement I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge that the patient signing this informed consent form had the study fully explained and clearly understands the nature, risks and benefits of her participation in the study. _________________________ ____________________ ________________ Name of Investigator Signature Date
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
321
Data Forms
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
322
Data Forms
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
323
Data Forms
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
324
Data Forms
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
325
Presentation abstract 1: Lack of admission weight measure is predictive of mortality at 6-month
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Background: Weight is a common anthropometric measurement, yet it is often not measured in hospitalised older adults. This study aims to determine the clinical and nutritional characteristics associated with the lack of admission weight measurement, and its associated impact on clinical outcomes. Methodology: Newly admitted patients aged > 60 years and who were not critically or terminally ill, were recruited from an acute geriatric medicine unit. We measured admission nutritional status using Subjective Global Assessment and functional status using modified Barthel Index (MBI). Participants were dichotomized into those with and without admission weight measures. Availability of admission weight measure was analysed against clinical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS), discharge to higher level care, 3-month readmission, 6-month mortality, and 6-month MBI using regression analysis with adjustment for age, gender, race, comorbidities, severity of illness, and admission MBI. Results: We studied 281 participants with mean age 81.3 + 7.6 years; 44% male; 83% Chinese; median length of stay 9 days. Weight measure was unavailable in 45 (16%) participants. In the group without admission weight measure, malnutrition prevalence was significantly higher (51% vs 32%, p<0.05) and mean MBI on admission was significantly lower (31.5+27.7 vs 64.3+25.2, p<0.05). Lack of admission weight was predictive of mortality at 6-month (33% vs 8%, OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.9-13.4) after adjustment for covariates. Discussion & Conclusion: Hospitalised older adults without weight measurement on admission represent an at-risk group with poorer nutritional and functional status and with five times higher risk of mortality at 6-month.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
326
Presentation abstract 2: Change in nutritional status of older adults during hospitalisation
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Background: The study aimed to determine the nutritional status of older adults upon admission to and discharge from a tertiary hospital in Singapore, and the impact of hospitalisation weight loss on clinical outcomes. Methodology: Newly admitted patients aged > 60 years were recruited from an acute geriatric medicine unit. All patients were assessed using Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), weight, mid-arm circumference (MAC), and triceps skinfold thickness (TSF) on admission and discharge. Weight loss >1% per week of hospitalization was analysed against the outcomes before and after adjustment for age, gender, depression, dementia, functional status, comorbidity and illness severity using regression analysis. Results: The sample comprised 281 patients with mean age 81.3 + 7.6 years; 44% male; 83% Chinese; median length of stay 9 days. 35% were malnourished on admission. 4% experienced decline in SGA status upon discharge. MAC and TSF were significantly lower at discharge (mean difference MAC:0.17cm; TSF:0.28mm, p<0.05). 27% had weight loss >1% per week during hospitalization. Weight loss >1% per week was predictive of discharge to higher level care (adjusted OR 2.64, p<0.05). Discussion & Conclusion: The decline in nutritional status of hospitalised older adults is significant. Hospitalisation weight loss is predictive of discharge to higher level care.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
327
Presentation poster 2: Change in nutritional status of older adults during hospitalisation
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
328
Presenation abstract 3: Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Aim: Despite the rapidly ageing population in Singapore, there is limited data on malnutrition prevalence in older adults. The study aimed to determine the prevalence of malnutrition and to identify the associated risk factors and outcomes in hospitalized older adults. Methods: Newly admitted non-terminal patients aged > 60 years were recruited from an acute geriatric medicine unit. Nutritional status was assessed using Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) upon admission. Risk factors such as swallowing impairment, poor appetite, body mass index (BMI), weight loss, serum albumin, dentition, polypharmacy, functional status, dementia, depression and other clinical diagnoses were assessed. Nutritional status (by SGA) was analysed against length of hospital stay (LOS), modified Barthel Index (MBI) at discharge and 6 months, and 6-month mortality, before and after adjustment for age, gender, depression, dementia, severity of illness and admission MBI using regression analysis. Results: The sample comprised 281 patients with the following characteristics: mean age 81.3 + 7.6 years; 44% male; 83% Chinese; 33% dementia. SGA identified 35% as malnourished. Swallowing impairment, loss of appetite, weight loss, serum albumin, BMI, functional status, depression, dementia, cancer and urinary tract infection were significantly associated with malnutrition (OR range: 1.0-10.7, adjusted for age and gender). Malnutrition was predictive of LOS (adjusted p<0.05) and 6-month mortality (adjusted OR: 3.3, p<0.05). Conclusion: The local prevalence of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults is significant. Malnutrition is predictive of longer LOS and 6-month mortality. Identifying associated risk factors will help to detect patients who require further nutrition assessment and intervention.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
329
Presentation poster 3: Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of malnutrition in hospitalised older adults
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
330
Presentation Abstract 4: Subjective Global Assessment is clinically more useful than Mini Nutritional Assessment in hospitalised older adults
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Background: Malnutrition is prevalent among hospitalized older adults. None of the nutritional assessment tools had been evaluated for use in Singapore. The study aimed to compare the use of Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) on hospitalized older adults. Methodology: Newly admitted patients aged > 60 years, who were not critically or terminally ill, were recruited from the geriatric medicine unit in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Nutritional status was assessed using SGA and MNA upon admission, and analysed against clinical outcomes using regression analysis, before and after adjustment of covariates such as age, gender, race, comorbidities, severity of illness, and admission modified Barthel Index (MBI). Results: The sample comprised 281 participants with mean age 81.3 + 7.6 years; 44% male; 83% Chinese; median length of stay (LOS) 9 days. SGA and MNA were completed in 100% and 84% of participants; 35% and 23% were identified as malnourished, respectively. SGA-determined malnutrition was associated with LOS >11days (OR 1.94), readmission at 3-month (OR 2.42), mortality at 6-month (OR 4.30), and MBI <50 at 6-month (OR 2.08, all p<0.05). MNA-determined malnutrition was associated with readmission at 3-month (OR 2.15), mortality at 6-month (OR 2.97), and MBI<50 at 6-month (OR 5.80, all p<0.05). After adjustment for covariates, only SGA-determined malnutrition remained predictive of LOS >11days (OR 2.45, p<0.05). Discussion & Conclusion: SGA has a higher completion rate and is better associated with clinical outcomes than MNA. Therefore SGA is a more useful nutritional assessment tool for hospitalized older adults in Singapore.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
331
Presentation poster 4: Subjective Global Assessment is clinically more useful than Mini Nutritional Assessment in hospitalised older adults
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
332
Presentation abstract 5: Evaluating the validity of four nutritional screening tools in hospitalised older adults
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Rationale: Hospitalised older adults are at risk of malnutrition due to a range of physiological and psychological reasons. There are limited nutritional screening tools which are validated in this high risk population in Singapore. The study aimed to determine and compare the diagnostic validity of four nutritional screening tools on hospitalised older adults in Singapore. Methods: Newly admitted patients aged > 60 years, who were not critically or terminally ill, were recruited from 3 wards of a geriatric medicine unit in Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH). Nutritional screening was performed by a single Diet Technician on admission using four screening tools: TTSH Nutrition Screening Tool (NST), Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Short Nutrition Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), and Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF). Nutritional status was assessed using Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) as the reference standard by a single Dietitian. ROC analysis and diagnostic performance of the tools were compared with SGA to determine AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Results: The sample comprised 281 patients with the following characteristics: mean age 81.3 + 7.6 years; 44% male; 83% Chinese; 33% dementia; 35% malnourished. The TTSH NST, NRS, SNAQ and MNA-SF identified 42%, 37%, 6% and 81% as at risk of malnutrition, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the screening tools against SGA were: TTSH NST (84%, 79%, 68%, 90%, AUC=0.87); NRS 2002 (69%, 79%, 64%, 83%, AUC=0.78); SNAQ (17%, 100%, 100%, 69%, AUC=0.76); MNA-SF (100%, 27%, 39%, 100%, AUC=0.16). The optimal cut-off for the TTSH NST remained unchanged even for patients aged >85 years (AUC=0.85). Conclusion: The TTSH NST has the best diagnostic performance among the four screening tools. It is a valid tool with good diagnostic value to detect malnutrition in the hospitalised older adults who are at high risk of malnutrition.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
333
Presentation poster 5: Evaluating the validity of four nutritional screening tools in hospitalised older adults
Presentation Abstract: Evaluating the validity of a nutritional screening tool in hospitalised older adults
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Aim: The Tan Tock Seng Hospital Nutrition Screening Tool (TTSH NST) was locally developed from a younger population of hospitalised adults. It is unclear if the previously derived cutoff of 4 would apply to the elderly. The study aimed to determine the diagnostic utility and predictive validity of the TTSH NST in hospitalised older adults, a high risk group for malnutrition and its sequelae. Methods: We prospectively screened 281 newly admitted patients aged 61 to 102 years for nutritional risk using the TTSH NST. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) served as the reference standard for comparison of nutritional status. Length of hospital stay (LOS), modified Barthel Index (MBI) at discharge and six months, and 6-month mortality were analysed in relation to NST-ascertained nutritional risk before and after adjustment for age, gender, dementia, depression, severity of illness and admission MBI using regression analysis. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was 35% based upon SGA. The optimal cutoff of the TTSH NST was 4, yielding sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 84%, 79%, 68% and 90% respectively (AUC=0.87). The optimal cut-off remained at 4 even for patients aged >85 years (AUC=0.85). Risk of malnutrition (as determined by TTSH NST) was predictive of 6-month mortality (adjusted OR: 2.2, p=0.05), LOS (p<0.05), and MBI at discharge (p<0.05) but not at six months. Conclusion: Our findings show that using a cutoff of 4, the TTSH NST is a valid screening tool with good diagnostic utility and predictive validity for detecting malnutrition in hospitalised older adults.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
334
Presentation abstract 6: Evaluating the validity of a nutritional screening tool in hospitalised older adults
YP LIM1, WS LIM2, TL TAN2, L DANIELS3 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 2Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 3Institute of Health and Biomedical Institution, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Aim: The Tan Tock Seng Hospital Nutrition Screening Tool (TTSH NST) was locally developed from a younger population of hospitalised adults. It is unclear if the previously derived cutoff of 4 would apply to the elderly. The study aimed to determine the diagnostic utility and predictive validity of the TTSH NST in hospitalised older adults, a high risk group for malnutrition and its sequelae. Methods: We prospectively screened 281 newly admitted patients aged 61 to 102 years for nutritional risk using the TTSH NST. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) served as the reference standard for comparison of nutritional status. Length of hospital stay (LOS), modified Barthel Index (MBI) at discharge and six months, and 6-month mortality were analysed in relation to NST-ascertained nutritional risk before and after adjustment for age, gender, dementia, depression, severity of illness and admission MBI using regression analysis. Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was 35% based upon SGA. The optimal cutoff of the TTSH NST was 4, yielding sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 84%, 79%, 68% and 90% respectively (AUC=0.87). The optimal cut-off remained at 4 even for patients aged >85 years (AUC=0.85). Risk of malnutrition (as determined by TTSH NST) was predictive of 6-month mortality (adjusted OR: 2.2, p=0.05), LOS (p<0.05), and MBI at discharge (p<0.05) but not at six months. Conclusion: Our findings show that using a cutoff of 4, the TTSH NST is a valid screening tool with good diagnostic utility and predictive validity for detecting malnutrition in hospitalised older adults.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
335
Presentation poster 6: Evaluating the validity of a nutritional screening tool in hospitalised older adults
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
336
Presentation abstract 7: Nutritional status of geriatric patients in a Singapore acute hospital
Y.P. Lim* 1, W.S. Lim2, T.L. Tan2, L, Y.H. Chan3, L. Daniels4 1Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, and 2Department Geriatric Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital Singapore. 3Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. 4Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology Objectives Older adults are at risk of malnutrition for a range of physiological and psychosocial reasons. The study aims to describe the nutritional status and determine the prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition of hospitalized older adults in Singapore. Design A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting Three wards of a geriatric medicine unit in an acute care general hospital Participants Newly admitted patients aged > 60 years, who were not terminally ill, were eligible. There was a consent rate of 71% among 141 eligible patients over a 3-month period. Our final sample comprised of 100 participants with the following characteristics: mean age 81.5 + 6.2 years; 52% male; 99% community dwellers; and 33% dementia. Measurements All participants were assessed by YPL using Mini-nutritional Assessment (MNA) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Weight, knee height, demispan, mid-arm circumference (MAC) and calf circumference (CC) were measured. Serum albumin (ALB) and total lymphocytes count (TLC) were also analysed. Results 38% and 33% (MNA<17) were malnourished as determined by SGA and MNA respectively (kappa: 0.72). 37% were underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), and 51% were determined by MNA to be at risk of malnutrition. 57% had ALB less than 35g/L and 62% had TLC less than 1500/mm3. The mean BMI, MAC, CC and ALB were significantly lower (BMI: 20.7 vs 16.8kg/m2; MAC: 25.9 vs 22.4cm; CC: 30.5 vs 26.4cm; ALB: 33.5 vs 29.8g/L, all p<0.01) in the malnourished group (defined by SGA) compared with the non-malnourished group. Conclusion The prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalized older adults in an acute hospital in Singapore in this study is comparable with that reported in other prevalence studies in developed countries. There appears to be a good agreement between SGA and MNA for malnutrition assessment. Participants defined as malnourished according to SGA showed lower anthropometric and biochemical nutritional indices than well-nourished participants.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
337
Presentation poster 7: Nutritional status of geriatric patients in a Singapore acute hospital
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
337
10 References
[1] Population in Brief:2009. 2009 [cited 2010 4 June]; Available from: http://www.nps.gov.sg/files/news/Population%20in%20Brief%202009.pdf
[2] Report of the Committee on Ageing Issues, Chapter 1: Demographic Realities. 2006 [cited 2008 22 Mar]; Available from: http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/Chapter%201%20-%20Demographic%20Realities.pdf
[3] Singapore Department of Statistics. Census of Population 2000. 2000 [cited 2010 04 June ]; Available from: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2000sr1/t32-37.pdf
[4] Ministry of Health. Hospital Admission Rates by Age and Sex. Statistics 2007 [cited 2010 4 June]; Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/statistics.aspx?id=20514
[5] Hickson M. Malnutrition and Ageing. Postgrad Med J. 2006 Jan;82(963):2-8.
[6] Visvanathan R. Under-Nutrition in Older People: A Serious and Growing Global Problem! J Postgrad Med. 2003 Oct-Dec;49(4):352-60.
[7] Stratton RJ, Green CJ, Elia M. Disease-Related Malnutrition: An Evidence-Based Approach to Treatment. Wallingford: CABI Publishing 2003:143-54.
[8] Chen CC, Schilling LS, Lyder CH. A Concept Analysis of Malnutrition in the Elderly. J Adv Nurs. 2001 Oct;36(1):131-42.
[9] Kamel HK. Sarcopenia and Aging. Nutr Rev. 2003 May;61(5 Pt 1):157-67.
[10] Evans WJ, Morley JE, Argiles J, Bales C, Baracos V, Guttridge D, et al. Cachexia: A New Definition. Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;27(6):793-9.
[11] National Centre for Classification in Health. Australian Coding Standards for I.C.D.-10-A.M. Sydney: National Centre for Classification in Health 2008.
[12] Lochs H, Allison SP, Meier R, Pirlich M, Kondrup J, Schneider S, et al. Introductory to the ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Terminology, Definitions and General Topics. Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;25(2):180-6.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
338
[13] Teitelbaum D, Guenter P, Howell WH, Kochevar ME, Roth J, Seidner DL. Definition of Terms, Style, and Conventions Used in ASPEN Guidelines and Standards. Nutr Clin Pract. 2005 Apr;20(2):281-5.
[14] BAPEN. Malnutrition and the Wider Context. 2003 [cited 2008 26 February ]; Definition of malnutrition ]. Available from: http://www.bapen.org.uk/res_press_rel9.html
[15] Lacey K, Pritchett E. Nutrition Care Process and Model: ADA Adopts Road Map to Quality Care and Outcomes Management. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Aug;103(8):1061-72.
[16] ADA. Identifying Patients at Risk: ADA's Definitions for Nutrition Screening and Nutrition Assessment. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 August 1994;94(8):838-9.
[17] Banks M, Ash S, Bauer J, Gaskill D. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Adults in Queensland Public Hospitals and Residential Aged Care Facilities. Nutr Diet. 2007;64:172-8.
[18] Robinson G, Goldstein M, Levine GM. Impact of Nutritional Status on DRG Length of Stay. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987 Jan-Feb;11(1):49-51.
[19] Posner BM, Jette A, Smigelski C, Miller D, Mitchell P. Nutritional Risk in New England Elders. J Gerontol. 1994 May;49(3):M123-32.
[20] Compan B, di Castri A, Plaze JM, Arnaud-Battandier F. Epidemiological Study of Malnutrition in Elderly Patients in Acute, Sub-Acute and Long-Term Care Using the MNA. J Nutr Health Aging. 1999;3(3):146-51.
[21] Correia MI, Campos AC. Prevalence of Hospital Malnutrition in Latin America: The Multicenter Elan Study. Nutrition. 2003 Oct;19(10):823-5.
[22] Martinez Olmos MA, Martinez Vazquez MJ, Martinez-Puga Lopez E, del Campo Perez V. Nutritional Status Study of Inpatients in Hospitals of Galicia. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Aug;59(8):938-46.
[23] Exton-Smith AN. Malnutrition in the Elderly. Proc R Soc Med. 1977 Sep;70(9):615-9.
[24] Morley JE. Anorexia of Aging: Physiologic and Pathologic. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;66(4):760-73.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
339
[25] Lipschitz DA. Screening for Nutritional Status in the Elderly. Prim Care. 1994 Mar;21(1):55-67.
[26] Corish CA, Kennedy NP. Protein-Energy Undernutrition in Hospital in-Patients. Br J Nutr. 2000 Jun;83(6):575-91.
[27] Sullivan DH, Sun S, Walls RC. Protein-Energy Undernutrition among Elderly Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Study. JAMA. 1999 Jun 2;281(21):2013-9.
[28] Hebuterne X, Broussard JF, Rampal P. Acute Renutrition by Cyclic Enteral Nutrition in Elderly and Younger Patients. JAMA. 1995 Feb 22;273(8):638-43.
[29] Hebuterne X, Bermon S, Schneider SM. Ageing and Muscle: The Effects of Malnutrition, Re-Nutrition, and Physical Exercise. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Jul;4(4):295-300.
[30] Clarke DM, Wahlqvist ML, Strauss BJ. Undereating and Undernutrition in Old Age: Integrating Bio-Psychosocial Aspects. Age Ageing. 1998 Jul;27(4):527-34.
[31] Feldblum I, German L, Castel H, Harman-Boehm I, Bilenko N, Eisinger M, et al. Characteristics of Undernourished Older Medical Patients and the Identification of Predictors for Undernutrition Status. Nutr J. 2007;6:37.
[32] Poulsen I, Rahm Hallberg I, Schroll M. Nutritional Status and Associated Factors on Geriatric Admission. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Mar-Apr;10(2):84-90.
[33] Vanderwee K, Clays E, Bocquaert I, Gobert M, Folens B, Defloor T. Malnutrition and Associated Factors in Elderly Hospital Patients: A Belgian Cross-Sectional, Multi-Centre Study. Clin Nutr. Jan 22.
[34] Gary F, Fleury J. Nutritional Status: Key to Preventing Functional Decline in Hospitalised Older Adults. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2002;17:40-71.
[35] Griep MI, Mets TF, Collys K, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I, Massart DL. Risk of Malnutrition in Retirement Homes Elderly Persons Measured by The "Mini-Nutritional Assessment". J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Feb;55(2):M57-63.
[36] German L, Feldblum I, Bilenko N, Castel H, Harman-Boehm I, Shahar DR. Depressive Symptoms and Risk for Malnutrition among Hospitalized Elderly People. J Nutr Health Aging. 2008 May;12(5):313-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
340
[37] Kagansky N, Berner Y, Koren-Morag N, Perelman L, Knobler H, Levy S. Poor Nutritional Habits Are Predictors of Poor Outcome in Very Old Hospitalized Patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):784-91; quiz 913-4.
[39] Brantervik AM, Jacobsson IE, Grimby A, Wallen TC, Bosaeus IG. Older Hospitalised Patients at Risk of Malnutrition: Correlation with Quality of Life, Aid from the Social Welfare System and Length of Stay? Age Ageing. 2005 Sep;34(5):444-9.
[40] Mamhidir AG, Ljunggren G, Kihlgren M, Kihlgren A, Wimo A. Underweight, Weight Loss and Related Risk Factors among Older Adults in Sheltered Housing--a Swedish Follow-up Study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Jul-Aug;10(4):255-62.
[41] Izawa S, Kuzuya M, Okada K, Enoki H, Koike T, Kanda S, et al. The Nutritional Status of Frail Elderly with Care Needs According to the Mini-Nutritional Assessment. Clin Nutr. 2006 Dec;25(6):962-7.
[42] Ritchie CS, Burgio KL, Locher JL, Cornwell A, Thomas D, Hardin M, et al. Nutritional Status of Urban Homebound Older Adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;66(4):815-8.
[43] Sullivan D, Lipschitz D. Evaluating and Treating Nutritional Problems in Older Patients. Clin Geriatr Med. 1997 Nov;13(4):753-68.
[44] Oliveira MR, Fogaca KC, Leandro-Merhi VA. Nutritional Status and Functional Capacity of Hospitalized Elderly. Nutr J. 2009;8:54.
[45] Dormenval V, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Mojon P, Bruyere A, Rapin CH. Nutrition, General Health Status and Oral Health Status in Hospitalised Elders. Gerodontology. 1995 Dec;12(12):73-80.
[46] Saunders MJ. Nutrition and Oral Health in the Elderly. Dent Clin North Am. 1997 Oct;41(4):681-98.
[47] Mojon P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Rapin CH. Relationship between Oral Health and Nutrition in Very Old People. Age Ageing. 1999 Sep;28(5):463-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
341
[48] Semba RD, Blaum CS, Bartali B, Xue QL, Ricks MO, Guralnik JM, et al. Denture Use, Malnutrition, Frailty, and Mortality among Older Women Living in the Community. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Mar-Apr;10(2):161-7.
[49] De Marchi RJ, Hugo FN, Hilgert JB, Padilha DM. Association between Oral Health Status and Nutritional Status in South Brazilian Independent-Living Older People. Nutrition. 2008 Jun;24(6):546-53.
[50] Waitzberg DL, Caiaffa WT, Correia MI. Hospital Malnutrition: The Brazilian National Survey (IBRANUTRI): A Study of 4000 Patients. Nutrition. 2001 Jul-Aug;17(7-8):573-80.
[51] Pirlich M, Schutz T, Kemps M, Luhman N, Minko N, Lubke HJ, et al. Social Risk Factors for Hospital Malnutrition. Nutrition. 2005 Mar;21(3):295-300.
[52] Butterworth CE, Jr. Editorial: Malnutrition in the Hospital. JAMA. 1974 Nov 11;230(6):879.
[53] Pennington CR. Disease-Associated Malnutrition in the Year 2000. Postgrad Med J. 1998 Feb;74(868):65-71.
[54] Kondrup J, Johansen N, Plum LM, Bak L, Larsen IH, Martinsen A, et al. Incidence of Nutritional Risk and Causes of Inadequate Nutritional Care in Hospitals. Clin Nutr. 2002 Dec;21(6):461-8.
[55] Posner BM, Jette AM, Smith KW, Miller DR. Nutrition and Health Risks in the Elderly: The Nutrition Screening Initiative. Am J Public Health. 1993 Jul;83(7):972-8.
[56] Yap KB, Niti M, Ng TP. Nutrition Screening among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Singapore. Singapore Med J. 2007 Oct;48(10):911-6.
[57] Woo J, Ho SC, Sham A, Yuen YK, Chan SG. Influence of Age, Disease and Disability on Anthropometric Indices in Elderly Chinese Aged 70 Years and Above. Gerontology. 1995;41(3):173-80.
[58] Butterworth CE. The Skeleton in the Hospital Closet. Nutrition Today. 1974;9:4-8.
[59] McWhirter JP, Pennington CR. Incidence and Recognition of Malnutrition in Hospital. BMJ. 1994 Apr 9;308(6934):945-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
342
[60] Raja R, Lim AV, Lim YP, Lim G, Chan SP, Vu CK. Malnutrition Screening in Hospitalised Patients and Its Implication on Reimbursement. Intern Med J. 2004 Apr;34(4):176-81.
[61] McClave SA, Mitoraj TE, Thielmeier KA, Greenburg RA. Differentiating Subtypes (Hypoalbuminemic Vs Marasmic) of Protein-Calorie Malnutrition: Incidence and Clinical Significance in a University Hospital Setting. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1992 Jul-Aug;16(4):337-42.
[62] Agarwal N, Acevedo F, Leighton LS, Cayten CG, Pitchumoni CS. Predictive Ability of Various Nutritional Variables for Mortality in Elderly People. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Nov;48(5):1173-8.
[63] Burns JT, Jensen GL. Malnutrition among Geriatric Patients Admitted to Medical and Surgical Services in a Tertiary Care Hospital: Frequency, Recognition, and Associated Disposition and Reimbursement Outcomes. Nutrition. 1995 Mar-Apr;11(2 Suppl):245-9.
[64] Nightingale JM, Walsh N, Bullock ME, Wicks AC. Three Simple Methods of Detecting Malnutrition on Medical Wards. J R Soc Med. 1996 Mar;89(3):144-8.
[65] Kruizenga HM, Wierdsma NJ, van Bokhorst MA, de van der S, Haollander HJ, Jonkers-Schuitema CF, et al. Screening of Nutritional Status in the Netherlands. Clin Nutr. 2003 Apr;22(2):147-52.
[66] Mowe M, Bohmer T. The Prevalence of Undiagnosed Protein-Calorie Undernutrition in a Population of Hospitalized Elderly Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Nov;39(11):1089-92.
[67] Bistrian BR, Blackburn GL, Hallowell E, Heddle R. Protein Status of General Surgical Patients. JAMA. 1974 Nov 11;230(6):858-60.
[68] Dzieniszewski J, Jarosz M, Szczygiel B, Dlugosz J, Marlicz K, Linke K, et al. Nutritional Status of Patients Hospitalised in Poland. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;59(4):552-60.
[69] Gariballa SE, Parker SG, Taub N, Castleden M. Nutritional Status of Hospitalized Acute Stroke Patients. Br J Nutr. 1998 Jun;79(6):481-7.
[70] Paillaud E, Herbaud S, Caillet P, Lejonc JL, Campillo B, Bories PN. Relations between Undernutrition and Nosocomial Infections in Elderly Patients. Age Ageing. 2005 Nov;34(6):619-25.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
343
[71] Kyle UG, Unger P, Mensi N, Genton L, Pichard C. Nutrition Status in Patients Younger and Older Than 60y at Hospital Admission: A Controlled Population Study in 995 Subjects. Nutrition. 2002 Jun;18(6):463-9.
[72] Edington J, Kon P, Martyn CN. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Patients in General Practice. Clin Nutr. 1996 Apr;15(2):60-3.
[73] Stookey JD, Wang Y, Ge K, Lin H, Popkin BM. Measuring Diet Quality in China: The INFH-UNC-CH Diet Quality Index. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000 Nov;54(11):811-21.
[74] Faxen-Irving G, Basun H, Cederholm T. Nutritional and Cognitive Relationships and Long-Term Mortality in Patients with Various Dementia Disorders. Age Ageing. 2005 Mar;34(2):136-41.
[75] Shum NC, Hui WW, Chu FC, Chai J, Chow TW. Prevalence of Malnutrition and Risk Factors in Geriatric Patients of a Convalescent and Rehabilitation Hospital. Hong Kong Med J. 2005 Aug;11(4):234-42.
[76] Mowe M, Bohmer T, Kindt E. Reduced Nutritional Status in an Elderly Population (> 70 Y) Is Probable before Disease and Possibly Contributes to the Development of Disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Feb;59(2):317-24.
[77] Martyn CN, Winter PD, Coles SJ, Edington J. Effect of Nutritional Status on Use of Health Care Resources by Patients with Chronic Disease Living in the Community. Clin Nutr. 1998 Jun;17(3):119-23.
[78] Chan M, Lim YP, Ernest A, Tan TL. Nutritional Assessment in an Asian Nursing Home and Its Association with Mortality. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010 Jan;14(1):23-8.
[79] Muhlethaler R, Stuck AE, Minder CE, Frey BM. The Prognostic Significance of Protein-Energy Malnutrition in Geriatric Patients. Age Ageing. 1995 May;24(3):193-7.
[80] Bistrian BR, Blackburn GL, Vitale J, Cochran D, Naylor J. Prevalence of Malnutrition in General Medical Patients. JAMA. 1976 Apr 12;235(15):1567-70.
[81] Potter J, Klipstein K, Reilly JJ, Roberts M. The Nutritional Status and Clinical Course of Acute Admissions to a Geriatric Unit. Age Ageing. 1995 Mar;24(2):131-6.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
344
[82] Neumann SA, Miller MD, Daniels L, Crotty M. Nutritional Status and Clinical Outcomes of Older Patients in Rehabilitation. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005 Apr;18(2):129-36.
[83] Thomas DR, Zdrowski CD, Wilson MM, Conright KC, Lewis C, Tariq S, et al. Malnutrition in Subacute Care. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Feb;75(2):308-13.
[84] Kyle UG, Unger P, Dupertuis YM, Karsegard VL, Genton L, Pichard C. Body Composition in 995 Acutely Ill or Chronically Ill Patients at Hospital Admission: A Controlled Population Study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002 Jul;102(7):944-55.
[85] Planas M, Audivert S, Perez-Portabella C, Burgos R, Puiggros C, Casanelles JM, et al. Nutritional Status among Adult Patients Admitted to an University-Affiliated Hospital in Spain at the Time of Genoma. Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):1016-24.
[86] Singh H, Watt K, Veitch R, Cantor M, Duerksen DR. Malnutrition Is Prevalent in Hospitalized Medical Patients: Are Housestaff Identifying the Malnourished Patient? Nutrition. 2006 Apr;22(4):350-4.
[87] Middleton MH, Nazarenko G, Nivison-Smith I, Smerdely P. Prevalence of Malnutrition and 12-Month Incidence of Mortality in Two Sydney Teaching Hospitals. Intern Med J. 2001 Nov;31(8):455-61.
[88] Braunschweig C, Gomez S, Sheean PM. Impact of Declines in Nutritional Status on Outcomes in Adult Patients Hospitalized for More Than 7 Days. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000 Nov;100(11):1316-22; quiz 23-4.
[89] Naber TH, Schermer T, de Bree A, Nusteling K, Eggink L, Kruimel JW, et al. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Nonsurgical Hospitalized Patients and Its Association with Disease Complications. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Nov;66(5):1232-9.
[90] Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The Impact of Malnutrition on Morbidity, Mortality, Length of Hospital Stay and Costs Evaluated through a Multivariate Model Analysis. Clin Nutr. 2003 Jun;22(3):235-9.
[91] Pichard C, Kyle UG, Morabia A, Perrier A, Vermeulen B, Unger P. Nutritional Assessment: Lean Body Mass Depletion at Hospital Admission Is Associated with an Increased Length of Stay. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Apr;79(4):613-8.
[92] Barreto Penie J. State of Malnutrition in Cuban Hospitals. Nutrition. 2005 Apr;21(4):487-97.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
345
[93] Ek AC, Unosson M, Larsson J, Ganowiak W, Bjurulf P. Interrater Variability and Validity in Subjective Nutritional Assessment of Elderly Patients. Scand J Caring Sci. 1996;10(3):163-8.
[94] Covinsky KE, Martin GE, Beyth RJ, Justice AC, Sehgal AR, Landefeld CS. The Relationship between Clinical Assessments of Nutritional Status and Adverse Outcomes in Older Hospitalized Medical Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 May;47(5):532-8.
[95] Sacks GS, Dearman K, Replogle WH, Cora VL, Meeks M, Canada T. Use of Subjective Global Assessment to Identify Nutrition-Associated Complications and Death in Geriatric Long-Term Care Facility Residents. J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Oct;19(5):570-7.
[96] Kyle UG, Pirlich M, Schuetz T, Lochs H, Pichard C. Is Nutritional Depletion by Nutritional Risk Index Associated with Increased Length of Hospital Stay? A Population-Based Study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004 Mar-Apr;28(2):99-104.
[97] Sungurtekin H, Sungurtekin U, Hanci V, Erdem E. Comparison of Two Nutrition Assessment Techniques in Hospitalized Patients. Nutrition. 2004 May;20(5):428-32.
[98] Schneider SM, Veyres P, Pivot X, Soummer AM, Jambou P, Filippi J, et al. Malnutrition Is an Independent Factor Associated with Nosocomial Infections. Br J Nutr. 2004 Jul;92(1):105-11.
[99] Cederholm T, Jagren C, Hellstrom K. Outcome of Protein-Energy Malnutrition in Elderly Medical Patients. Am J Med. 1995 Jan;98(1):67-74.
[100] Stratton RJ, Thompson RL, Margetts BM, Stroud M, Jackson AA, Elia M. Healthcare Utilisation According to Malnutrition Risk in the Elderly:An Analysis of Data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of People Aged 65 and Over. Proc Nutr Soc. 2002;61:20A.
[101] Larsson J, Unosson M, Ek AC, Nilsson L, Thorslund S, Bjurulf P. Effect of Dietary Supplement on Nutritional Status and Clinical Outcome in 501 Geriatric Patients-a Randomised Study. Clin Nutr. 1990 Aug;9(4):179-84.
[102] Wikby K, Ek AC, Christensson L. Nutritional Status in Elderly People Admitted to Community Residential Homes: Comparisons between Two Cohorts. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 May-Jun;10(3):232-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
346
[103] Linn BS. Outcomes of Older and Younger Malnourished and Well-Nourished Patients One Year after Hospitalization. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;39(1):66-73.
[104] Bienia R, Ratcliff S, Barbour GL, Kummer M. Malnutrition in the Hospitalized Geriatric Patient. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1982 Jul;30(7):433-6.
[105] Edington J, Boorman J, Durrant ER, Perkins A, Giffin CV, James R, et al. Prevalence of Malnutrition on Admission to Four Hospitals in England. The Malnutrition Prevalence Group. Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;19(3):191-5.
[106] Keller HH. Malnutrition in Institutionalized Elderly: How and Why? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993 Nov;41(11):1212-8.
[107] Stratton RJ, Green CJ, Elia M. Disease-Related Malnutrition: An Evidence-Based Approach to Treatment. Wallingford: CABI Publishing 2003.
[108] Gariballa SE, Sinclair AJ. Nutrition, Ageing and Ill Health. Br J Nutr. 1998 Jul;80(1):7-23.
[109] Azad N, Murphy J, Amos SS, Toppan J. Nutrition Survey in an Elderly Population Following Admission to a Tertiary Care Hospital. CMAJ. 1999 Sep 7;161(5):511-5.
[110] Volkert D, Frauenrath C, Micol W, Kruse W, Oster P, Schlierf G. Nutritional Status of the Very Old: Anthropometric and Biochemical Findings in Apparently Healthy Women in Old People's Homes. Aging (Milano). 1992 Mar;4(1):21-8.
[111] Lang PO, Heitz D, Hedelin G, Drame M, Jovenin N, Ankri J, et al. Early Markers of Prolonged Hospital Stays in Older People: A Prospective, Multicenter Study of 908 Inpatients in French Acute Hospitals. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Jul;54(7):1031-9.
[112] Watterson C, Fraser A, Banks M, Isenring E, Miller M, Silvester C, et al. Evidence Based Practice Guidelines for the Nutritional Management of Malnutrition in Adult Patients across the Continuum of Care. Dietitians Association of Australia. Nutr Diet. 2009;66(s3):S1-S34.
[113] Persson MD, Brismar KE, Katzarski KS, Nordenstrom J, Cederholm TE. Nutritional Status Using Mini Nutritional Assessment and Subjective Global Assessment Predict Mortality in Geriatric Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Dec;50(12):1996-2002.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
347
[114] Burns A, Marsh A, Bender DA. Dietary Intake and Clinical, Anthropometric and Biochemical Indices of Malnutrition in Elderly Demented Patients and Non-Demented Subjects. Psychol Med. 1989 May;19(2):383-91.
[115] Volkert D, Saeglitz G, Gueldenzoph H, Sieber CC, Stehle P. Undiagnosed Malnutrition and Nutrition-Related Problems in Geriatric Patients. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14(5):387-92.
[116] Feldblum I, German L, Bilenko N, Shahar A, Enten R, Greenberg D, et al. Nutritional Risk and Health Care Use before and after an Acute Hospitalization among the Elderly. Nutrition. 2009 Apr;25(4):415-20.
[117] Lei Z, Qingyi D, Feng G, Chen W, Shoshana Hock R, Changli W. Clinical Study of Mini-Nutritional Assessment for Older Chinese Inpatients. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009 Dec;13(10):871-5.
[118] Coelho AK, Rocha FL, Fausto MA. Prevalence of Undernutrition in Elderly Patients Hospitalized in a Geriatric Unit in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Nutrition. 2006 Oct;22(10):1005-11.
[119] Pirlich M, Schutz T, Norman K, Gastell S, Lubke HJ, Bischoff SC, et al. The German Hospital Malnutrition Study. Clin Nutr. 2006 Aug;25(4):563-72.
[120] Van Nes MC, Herrmann FR, Gold G, Michel JP, Rizzoli R. Does the Mini Nutritional Assessment Predict Hospitalization Outcomes in Older People? Age Ageing. 2001 May;30(3):221-6.
[121] Gazzotti C, Albert A, Pepinster A, Petermans J. Clinical Usefulness of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (Mna) Scale in Geriatric Medicine. J Nutr Health Aging. 2000;4(3):176-81.
[122] Lansey S, Waslien C, Mulvihill M, Fillit H. The Role of Anthropometry in the Assessment of Malnutrition in the Hospitalized Frail Elderly. Gerontology. 1993;39(6):346-53.
[123] Constans T, Bacq Y, Brechot JF, Guilmot JL, Choutet P, Lamisse F. Protein-Energy Malnutrition in Elderly Medical Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Mar;40(3):263-8.
[124] Hsieh YM, Sung TS, Wan KS. A Survey of Nutrition and Health Status of Solitary and Non-Solitary Elders in Taiwan. J Nutr Health Aging. Jan;14(1):11-4.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
348
[125] Tsai AC, Chou YT, Chang TL, Chang-Lee SN, Tsay SF. A Modified Mini Nutritional Assessment without BMI Can Effectively Assess the Nutritional Status of Neuropsychiatric Patients. J Clin Nurs. 2009 Jul;18(13):1916-22.
[126] Visvanathan R, Macintosh C, Callary M, Penhall R, Horowitz M, Chapman I. The Nutritional Status of 250 Older Australian Recipients of Domiciliary Care Services and Its Association with Outcomes at 12 Months. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Jul;51(7):1007-11.
[127] de Groot LC, Sette S, Zajkas G, Carbajal A, Amorim JA. Nutritional Status: Anthropometry. Euronut Seneca Investigators. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;45 Suppl 3:31-42.
[128] Crogan NL, Pasvogel A. The Influence of Protein-Calorie Malnutrition on Quality of Life in Nursing Homes. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003 Feb;58(2):159-64.
[129] Christensson L, Unosson M, Ek AC. Evaluation of Nutritional Assessment Techniques in Elderly People Newly Admitted to Municipal Care. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Sep;56(9):810-8.
[130] Saletti A, Lindgren EY, Johansson L, Cederholm T. Nutritional Status According to Mini Nutritional Assessment in an Institutionalized Elderly Population in Sweden. Gerontology. 2000 May-Jun;46(3):139-45.
[131] Elia M, Zellipour L, Stratton RJ. To Screen or Not to Screen for Adult Malnutrition? Clin Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6):867-84.
[132] Adams NE, Bowie AJ, Simmance N, Murray M, Crowe TC. Recognition by Medical and Nursing Professionals of Malnutrition and Risk of Malnutrition in Elderly Hospitalised Patients. Nutr Diet. 2008;65:144-50.
[133] Gout BS, Barker LA, Crowe TC. Malnutrition Identification, Diagnosis and Dietetic Referrals: Are We Doing a Good Enough Job? Nutr Diet. 2009;66:206-11.
[134] Kelly IE, Tessier S, Cahill A, Morris SE, Crumley A, McLaughlin D, et al. Still Hungry in Hospital: Identifying Malnutrition in Acute Hospital Admissions. QJM. 2000 Feb;93(2):93-8.
[135] O'Flynn J, Peake H, Hickson M, Foster D, Frost G. The Prevalence of Malnutrition in Hospitals Can Be Reduced: Results from Three Consecutive Cross-Sectional Studies. Clin Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6):1078-88.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
349
[136] Sullivan DH, Moriarty MS, Chernoff R, Lipschitz DA. Patterns of Care: An Analysis of the Quality of Nutritional Care Routinely Provided to Elderly Hospitalized Veterans. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989 May-Jun;13(3):249-54.
[137] Corish CA, Flood P, Mulligan S, Kennedy NP. Apparent Low Frequency of Undernutrition in Dublin Hospital in-Patients: Should We Review the Anthropometric Thresholds for Clinical Practice? Br J Nutr. 2000 Sep;84(3):325-35.
[138] Bruun LI, Bosaeus I, Bergstad I, Nygaard K. Prevalence of Malnutrition in Surgical Patients: Evaluation of Nutritional Support and Documentation. Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;18(3):141-7.
[139] Antonelli Incalzi R, Landi F, Cipriani L, Bruno E, Pagano F, Gemma A, et al. Nutritional Assessment: A Primary Component of Multidimensional Geriatric Assessment in the Acute Care Setting. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996 Feb;44(2):166-74.
[140] Gallagher-Allred CR, Voss AC, Finn SC, McCamish MA. Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes: The Case for Medical Nutrition Therapy. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996 Apr;96(4):361-6, 9.
[141] Dempsey DT, Mullen JL, Buzby GP. The Link between Nutritional Status and Clinical Outcome: Can Nutritional Intervention Modify It? Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Feb;47(2 Suppl):352-6.
[142] Sullivan DH, Walls RC. Impact of Nutritional Status on Morbidity in a Population of Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 May;42(5):471-7.
[143] Sullivan DH, Patch GA, Walls RC, Lipschitz DA. Impact of Nutrition Status on Morbidity and Mortality in a Select Population of Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 May;51(5):749-58.
[144] Norman K, Schutz T, Kemps M, Josef Lubke H, Lochs H, Pirlich M. The Subjective Global Assessment Reliably Identifies Malnutrition-Related Muscle Dysfunction. Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;24(1):143-50.
[145] Vaz M, Thangam S, Prabhu A, Shetty PS. Maximal Voluntary Contraction as a Functional Indicator of Adult Chronic Undernutrition. Br J Nutr. 1996 Jul;76(1):9-15.
[146] Bannerman E, Miller MD, Daniels LA, Cobiac L, Giles LC, Whitehead C, et al. Anthropometric Indices Predict Physical Function and Mobility in Older
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
350
Australians: The Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Public Health Nutr. 2002 Oct;5(5):655-62.
[147] Galanos AN, Pieper CF, Cornoni-Huntley JC, Bales CW, Fillenbaum GG. Nutrition and Function: Is There a Relationship between Body Mass Index and the Functional Capabilities of Community-Dwelling Elderly? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Apr;42(4):368-73.
[148] Ek AC, Unosson M, Larsson J, Von Schenck H, Bjurulf P. The Development and Healing of Pressure Sores Related to the Nutritional State. Clin Nutr. 1991 Oct;10(5):245-50.
[149] Breslow RA, Bergstrom N. Nutritional Prediction of Pressure Ulcers. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 Nov;94(11):1301-4; quiz 5-6.
[150] Chima CS, Barco K, Dewitt ML, Maeda M, Teran JC, Mullen KD. Relationship of Nutritional Status to Length of Stay, Hospital Costs, and Discharge Status of Patients Hospitalized in the Medicine Service. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997 Sep;97(9):975-8.
[151] Sullivan DH. Risk Factors for Early Hospital Readmission in a Select Population of Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients: The Significance of Nutritional Status. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Aug;40(8):792-8.
[152] Friedmann JM, Jensen GL, Smiciklas-Wright H, McCamish MA. Predicting Early Nonelective Hospital Readmission in Nutritionally Compromised Older Adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jun;65(6):1714-20.
[153] Reilly JJ, Jr., Hull SF, Albert N, Waller A, Bringardener S. Economic Impact of Malnutrition: A Model System for Hospitalized Patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988 Jul-Aug;12(4):371-6.
[154] Russell CA. The Impact of Malnutrtion on Healthcare Costs and Economic Considerations for Use of Oral Nutritional Supplements. Clinical Nutrition Supplements. 2007;2:25-32.
[155] Sullivan DH, Walls RC, Bopp MM. Protein-Energy Undernutrition and the Risk of Mortality within One Year of Hospital Discharge: A Follow-up Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 May;43(5):507-12.
[156] Volkert D, Kruse W, Oster P, Schlierf G. Malnutrition in Geriatric Patients: Diagnostic and Prognostic Significance of Nutritional Parameters. Ann Nutr Metab. 1992;36(2):97-112.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
351
[157] Flodin L, Svensson S, Cederholm T. Body Mass Index as a Predictor of 1 Year Mortality in Geriatric Patients. Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;19(2):121-5.
[158] Alarcon T, Barcena A, Gonzalez-Montalvo JI, Penalosa C, Salgado A. Factors Predictive of Outcome on Admission to an Acute Geriatric Ward. Age Ageing. 1999 Sep;28(5):429-32.
[159] Sullivan DH, Walls RC, Lipschitz DA. Protein-Energy Undernutrition and the Risk of Mortality within 1 Y of Hospital Discharge in a Select Population of Geriatric Rehabilitation Patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;53(3):599-605.
[160] Sullivan DH, Walls RC. The Risk of Life-Threatening Complications in a Select Population of Geriatric Patients: The Impact of Nutritional Status. J Am Coll Nutr. 1995 Feb;14(1):29-36.
[161] Sullivan DH, Bopp MM, Roberson PK. Protein-Energy Undernutrition and Life-Threatening Complications among the Hospitalized Elderly. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Dec;17(12):923-32.
[162] Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the Sensitivity of the Barthel Index for Stroke Rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(8):703-9.
[163] Katz S. Assessing Self-Maintenance. Activities of Daily-Living, Mobilidity and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983;21:721-7. [164] Amaral TF, Matos LC, Teixeira MA, Tavares MM, Alvares L, Antunes A. Undernutrition and Associated Factors among Hospitalized Patients. Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;29(5):580-5.
[165] Kinney JM. Nutritional Frailty, Sarcopenia and Falls in the Elderly. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2004 Jan;7(1):15-20.
[166] Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z. Nutritional Risk Screening (Nrs 2002): A New Method Based on an Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Clin Nutr. 2003 Jun;22(3):321-36.
[167] Elia M, Stratton RJ. How Much Undernutrition Is There in Hospitals? Br J Nutr. 2000 Sep;84(3):257-9.
[168] British Dietetic Association. Nutritional Screening Tools-Professional Development Committee Briefing Paper No.9. London: BDA; 1999.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
352
[169] Milne AC, Potter J, Vivanti A, Avenell A. Protein and Energy Supplementation in Elderly People at Risk from Malnutrition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(2):CD003288.
[170] Kruizenga HM, Van Tulder MW, Seidell JC, Thijs A, Ader HJ, Van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren MA. Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Early Screening and Treatment of Malnourished Patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Nov;82(5):1082-9.
[172] Tucker HN, Miguel SG. Cost Containment through Nutrition Intervention. Nutr Rev. 1996 Apr;54(4 Pt 1):111-21.
[173] Potter J, Langhorne P, Roberts M. Routine Protein Energy Supplementation in Adults: Systematic Review. BMJ. 1998 Aug 22;317(7157):495-501.
[174] Volkert D, Berner YN, Berry E, Cederholm T, Coti Bertrand P, Milne A, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Geriatrics. Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;25(2):330-60.
[175] Milne AC, Potter J, Avenell A. Protein and Energy Supplementation in Elderly People at Risk from Malnutrition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(2):CD003288.
[176] Stratton RJ, Elia M. Who Benefits from Nutritional Support: What Is the Evidence? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 May;19(5):353-8.
[177] Babineau J, Villalon L, Laporte M, Payette H. Outcomes of Screening and Nutritional Intervention among Older Adults in Healthcare Facilities. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2008 Summer;69(2):89-94.
[178] Rypkema G, Adang E, Dicke H, Naber T, de Swart B, Disselhorst L, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Intervention in Geriatric Inpatients to Prevent Malnutrition. J Nutr Health Aging. 2003;8(2):122-7.
[179] Kruizenga HM, Seidell JC, de Vet HC, Wierdsma NJ, van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren MA. Development and Validation of a Hospital Screening Tool for Malnutrition: The Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ). Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;24(1):75-82.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
353
[180] Ockenga J, Freudenreich M, Zakonsky R, Norman K, Pirlich M, Lochs H. Nutritional Assessment and Management in Hospitalised Patients: Implication for DRG-Based Reimbursement and Health Care Quality. Clin Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6):913-9.
[181] Reilly HM, Martineau JK, Moran A, Kennedy H. Nutritional Screening--Evaluation and Implementation of a Simple Nutrition Risk Score. Clin Nutr. 1995 Oct;14(5):269-73.
[182] Jones JM. The Methodology of Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2002;15:59-71.
[183] Green SM, Watson R. Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools for Use by Nurses: Literature Review. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Apr;50(1):69-83.
[184] Ferguson M, Capra S, Bauer J, Banks M. Development of a Valid and Reliable Malnutrition Screening Tool for Adult Acute Hospital Patients. Nutrition. 1999 Jun;15(6):458-64.
[185] Guigoz Y, Lauque S, Vellas BJ. Identifying the Elderly at Risk for Malnutrition. The Mini Nutritional Assessment. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002 Nov;18(4):737-57.
[186] de Groot LC, Beck AM, Schroll M, van Staveren WA. Evaluating the Determine Your Nutritional Health Checklist and the Mini Nutritional Assessment as Tools to Identify Nutritional Problems in Elderly Europeans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Dec;52(12):877-83.
[187] Nagel MR. Nutrition Screening: Identifying Patients at Risk for Malnutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 1993 Aug;8(4):171-5.
[188] Cotton E, Zinober B, Jessop J. A Nutritional Assessment Tool for Older Patients. Prof Nurse. 1996 Jun;11(9):609-10, 12.
[189] Ward J, Closet J, Little J, Boorman J, Perkins A, Coles S, et al. Development of a Screening Tool for Assessing Risk of Undernutrition in Patients in the Community. J Hum Nutr Diet. 1998;11:323-30.
[190] Burden ST, Bodey S, Bradburn YJ, Murdoch S, Thompson AL, Sim JM, et al. Validation of a Nutrition Screening Tool: Testing the Reliability and Validity. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2001 Aug;14(4):269-75.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
354
[191] de Kruif JT, Vos A. An Algorithm for the Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status in Hospitalized Patients. Br J Nutr. 2003 Oct;90(4):829-36.
[192] Sayarath VG. Nutrition Screening for Malnutrition: Potential Economic Impact at a Community Hospital. J Am Diet Assoc. 1993 Dec;93(12):1440-2.
[193] Kovacevich DS, Boney AR, Braunschweig CL, Perez A, Stevens M. Nutrition Risk Classification: A Reproducible and Valid Tool for Nurses. Nutr Clin Pract. 1997 Feb;12(1):20-5.
[194] Oakley C, Hill R. Nutrition Assessment Score Validation and the Implications for Usuage J Hum Nutr Diet. 2000;13:343-52.
[195] Laporte M, Villalon L, Thibodeau J, Payette H. Validity and Reliability of Simple Nutrition Screening Tools Adapted to the Elderly Population in Healthcare Facilities. J Nutr Health Aging. 2001;5(4):292-4.
[196] Weekes CE, Elia M, Emery PW. The Development, Validation and Reliability of a Nutrition Screening Tool Based on the Recommendations of the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN). Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):1104-12.
[197] Nursal TZ, Noyan T, Atalay BG, Koz N, Karakayali H. Simple Two-Part Tool for Screening of Malnutrition. Nutrition. 2005 Jun;21(6):659-65.
[198] Stratton RJ, Hackston A, Longmore D, Dixon R, Price S, Stroud M, et al. Malnutrition in Hospital Outpatients and Inpatients: Prevalence, Concurrent Validity and Ease of Use of the 'Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool' ('MUST') for Adults. Br J Nutr. 2004 Nov;92(5):799-808.
[199] Jones JM. Reliability of Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools. Nutrition. 2004 Mar;20(3):307-11.
[200] Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, Vellas B, Plauth M. ESPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Screening 2002. Clin Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):415-21.
[201] Green SM, Watson R. Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools for Older Adults: Literature Review. J Adv Nurs. 2006 May;54(4):477-90.
[202] Stratton RJ, King CL, Stroud MA, Jackson AA, Elia M. 'Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool' Predicts Mortality and Length of Hospital Stay in Acutely Ill Elderly. Br J Nutr. 2006 Feb;95(2):325-30.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
355
[203] Bauer JM, Vogl T, Wicklein S, Trogner J, Muhlberg W, Sieber CC. Comparison of the Mini Nutritional Assessment, Subjective Global Assessment, and Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002) for Nutritional Screening and Assessment in Geriatric Hospital Patients. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2005 Oct;38(5):322-7.
[204] van Venrooij LMW, de Vos R, Borgmeijer-Hoelen AMMJ, Kruizenga HM, Jonkers-Schuitema CF, de Mol BAMJ. Quick-and-Easy Nutritional Screening Tools to Detect Disease-Related Undernutrition in Hospital in- and Outpatient Settings: A Systemative Review of Sensitivity and Specificity. e-SPEN, the European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 2007;2:21-37.
[205] Elmore MF, Wagner DR, Knoll DM, Eizember L, Oswalt MA, Glowinski EA, et al. Developing an Effective Adult Nutrition Screening Tool for a Community Hospital. J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 Oct;94(10):1113-8, 21; quiz 9-20.
[206] Drescher T, Singler K, Ulrich A, Koller M, Keller U, Christ-Crain M, et al. Comparison of Two Malnutrition Risk Screening Methods (MNA and NRS 2002) and Their Association with Markers of Protein Malnutrition in Geriatric Hospitalized Patients. Eur J Clin Nutr. Aug;64(8):887-93.
[207] Soderhamn U, Soderhamn O. Reliability and Validity of the Nutritional Form for the Elderly (NUFFE). J Adv Nurs. 2002 Jan;37(1):28-34.
[209] Kamath SK, Lawler M, Smith AE, Kalat T, Olson R. Hospital Malnutrition: A 33-Hospital Screening Study. J Am Diet Assoc. 1986 Feb;86(2):203-6.
[210] Jones JM. Validity of Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools. Nutrition. 2004 Mar;20(3):312-7.
[211] Anthony PS. Nutrition Screening Tools for Hospitalized Patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2008 Aug-Sep;23(4):373-82.
[212] Charney P. Nutrition Screening Vs Nutrition Assessment: How Do They Differ? Nutr Clin Pract. 2008 Aug-Sep;23(4):366-72.
[213] Rubenstein LZ, Harker JO, Salva A, Guigoz Y, Vellas B. Screening for Undernutrition in Geriatric Practice: Developing the Short-Form Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Jun;56(6):M366-72.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
356
[214] Johansen N, Kondrup J, Plum LM, Bak L, Norregaard P, Bunch E, et al. Effect of Nutritional Support on Clinical Outcome in Patients at Nutritional Risk. Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug;23(4):539-50.
[215] Martins CP, Correia JR, do Amaral TF. Undernutrition Risk Screening and Length of Stay of Hospitalized Elderly. J Nutr Elder. 2005;25(2):5-21.
[216] Raslan M, Gonzalez MC, Torrinhas RS, Ravacci GR, Pereira JC, Waitzberg DL. Complementarity of Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) for Predicting Poor Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients. Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug 11(Epub ahead of print).
[217] Rasmussen HH, Kondrup J, Staun M, Ladefoged K, Kristensen H, Wengler A. Prevalence of Patients at Nutritional Risk in Danish Hospitals. Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;23(5):1009-15.
[218] Guigoz Y. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) Review of the Literature--What Does It Tell Us? J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Nov-Dec;10(6):466-85; discussion 85-7.
[219] Holmen MS, Robertsson B, Wijk H. Tools to Assess the Nutritional Status of Acutely Ill Older Adults. Nurs Older People. 2006 Jun;18(5):31-5.
[220] Ranhoff AH, Gjoen AU, Mowe M. Screening for Malnutrition in Elderly Acute Medical Patients: The Usefulness of MNA-SF. J Nutr Health Aging. 2005 Jul-Aug;9(4):221-5.
[221] Nestle-Nutrition-Institute. A Guide to Completing the Mini Nutritional Assessment -Short Form (MNA-SF). [cited 2010 3 February]; Available from: http://www.mna-elderly.com/forms/mna_guide_english_sf.pdf
[222] Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Ramsch C, Uter W, Guigoz Y, Cederholm T, et al. Validation of the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form (MNA-SF): A Practical Tool for Identification of Nutritional Status. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009 Nov;13(9):782-8.
[223] Woo J, Chumlea WC, Sun SS, Kwok T, Lui HH, Hui E, et al. Development of the Chinese Nutrition Screen (CNS) for Use in Institutional Settings. J Nutr Health Aging. 2005 Jul-Aug;9(4):203-10.
[224] Kyle UG, Kossovsky MP, Karsegard VL, Pichard C. Comparison of Tools for Nutritional Assessment and Screening at Hospital Admission: A Population Study. Clin Nutr. 2006 Jun;25(3):409-17.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
357
[225] Klein S, Kinney J, Jeejeebhoy K, Alpers D, Hellerstein M, Murray M, et al. Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice: Review of Published Data and Recommendations for Future Research Directions. Summary of a Conference Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and American Society for Clinical Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep;66(3):683-706.
[226] Omran ML, Morley JE. Assessment of Protein Energy Malnutrition in Older Persons, Part I: History, Examination, Body Composition, and Screening Tools. Nutrition. 2000 Jan;16(1):50-63.
[227] Lukaski HC. Methods for the Assessment of Human Body Composition: Traditional and New. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Oct;46(4):537-56.
[228] Gibson RS. Principles of Nutritional Assessment. 2nd edition ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2005:274-8.
[229] Crotty M, Miller M, Giles L, Daniels L, Bannerman E, Whitehead C, et al. Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing: Prospective Evaluation of Anthropometric Indices in Terms of Four Year Mortality in Community-Living Older Adults. J Nutr Health Aging. 2002;6(1):20-3.
[230] Burden ST, Stoppard E, Shaffer J, Makin A, Todd C. Can We Use Mid Upper Arm Anthropometry to Detect Malnutrition in Medical Inpatients? A Validation Study. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005 Aug;18(4):287-94.
[231] Chumlea W, Roche AF, Mukherjee D, Steinbaugh ML. Errors of Measurement for Methods of Recumbent Nutritional Anthropometry in the Elderly. J Nutr Elder. 1985;5(1):3-11.
[232] Jensen TG, Dudrick SJ, Johnston DA. A Comparison of Triceps Skinfold and Upper Arm Circumference Measurements Taken in Standard and Supine Positions. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1981 Nov-Dec;5(6):519-21.
[233] Vanderschueren S, Geens E, Knockaert D, Bobbaers H. The Diagnostic Spectrum of Unintentional Weight Loss. Eur J Intern Med. 2005 Jun;16(3):160-4.
[234] Alibhai SM, Greenwood C, Payette H. An Approach to the Management of Unintentional Weight Loss in Elderly People. CMAJ. 2005 Mar 15;172(6):773-80.
[235] Detsky AS, McLaughlin JR, Baker JP, Johnston N, Whittaker S, Mendelson RA, et al. What Is Subjective Global Assessment of Nutritional Status? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987 Jan-Feb;11(1):8-13.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
358
[236] Blackburn GL, Bistrian BR, Maini BS, Schlamm HT, Smith MF. Nutritional and Metabolic Assessment of the Hospitalized Patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1977;1(1):11-22.
[237] Marton KI, Sox HC, Jr., Krupp JR. Involuntary Weight Loss: Diagnostic and Prognostic Significance. Ann Intern Med. 1981 Nov;95(5):568-74.
[238] Meltzer AA, Everhart JE. Unintentional Weight Loss in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Nov 15;142(10):1039-46.
[239] Newman AB, Yanez D, Harris T, Duxbury A, Enright PL, Fried LP. Weight Change in Old Age and Its Association with Mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Oct;49(10):1309-18.
[240] Ensrud KE, Ewing SK, Stone KL, Cauley JA, Bowman PJ, Cummings SR. Intentional and Unintentional Weight Loss Increase Bone Loss and Hip Fracture Risk in Older Women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Dec;51(12):1740-7.
[241] Launer LJ, Harris T, Rumpel C, Madans J. Body Mass Index, Weight Change, and Risk of Mobility Disability in Middle-Aged and Older Women. The Epidemiologic Follow-up Study of NHANES I. JAMA. 1994 Apr 13;271(14):1093-8.
[242] Powell-Tuck J, Hennessy EM. A Comparison of Mid Upper Arm Circumference, Body Mass Index and Weight Loss as Indices of Undernutrition in Acutely Hospitalized Patients. Clin Nutr. 2003 Jun;22(3):307-12.
[243] Woo J, Ho SC, Sham A. Longitudinal Changes in Body Mass Index and Body Composition over 3 Years and Relationship to Health Outcomes in Hong Kong Chinese Age 70 and Older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Jun;49(6):737-46.
[244] Morgan DB, Hill GL, Burkinshaw L. The Assessment of Weight Loss from a Single Measurement of Body Weight: The Problems and Limitations. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Oct;33(10):2101-5.
[245] Finucane P, Rudra T, Hsu R, Tomlinson K, Hutton RD, Pathy MS. Markers of the Nutritional Status in Acutely Ill Elderly Patients. Gerontology. 1988;34(5-6):304-10.
[246] Mitchell CO, Lipschitz DA. Arm Length Measurement as an Alternative to Height in Nutritional Assessment of the Elderly. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1982 May-Jun;6(3):226-9.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
359
[247] Kwok T, Whitelaw MN. The Use of Armspan in Nutritional Assessment of the Elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 May;39(5):492-6.
[248] Bassey EJ. Demi-Span as a Measure of Skeletal Size. Ann Hum Biol. 1986 Sep-Oct;13(5):499-502.
[249] Chumlea WC, Roche AF, Steinbaugh ML. Estimating Stature from Knee Height for Persons 60 to 90 Years of Age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1985 Feb;33(2):116-20.
[250] Lehmann AB. Review: Undernutrition in Elderly People. Age Ageing. 1989 Sep;18(5):339-53.
[251] Sorkin JD, Muller DC, Andres R. Longitudinal Change in Height of Men and Women: Implications for Interpretation of the Body Mass Index: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Nov 1;150(9):969-77.
[252] Cheng HS, See LC, Shieh YH. Estimating Stature from Knee Height for Adults in Taiwan. Chang Gung Med J. 2001;24(9):547-56.
[253] Li ETS, Tang EKY, Wong CYM, Lui SSH, Chan VYN, Dai DLK. Predicting Stature from Knee Height in Chinese Elderly Subjects Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2000;9(4):252-5.
[254] Shahar S, Pooy NS. Predictive Equations for Estimation of Stature in Malaysian Elderly People. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(1):80-4.
[255] Chumlea WC, Guo SS, Wholihan K, Cockram D, Kuczmarski RJ, Johnson CL. Stature Prediction Equations for Elderly Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Mexican-American Persons Developed from NHANES III Data. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998 Feb;98(2):137-42.
[256] Donini LM, de Felice MR, de Bernardini L, Ferrari G, Rosano A, de Medici M, et al. Prediction of Stature in the Italian Elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2000;4(2):72-6.
[257] Mendoza-Nunez VM, Sanchez-Rodriguez MA, Cervantes-Sandoval A, Correa-Munoz E, Vargas-Guadarrama LA. Equations for Predicting Height for Elderly Mexican Americans Are Not Applicable for Elderly Mexicans. Am J Hum Biol. 2002 May-Jun;14(3):351-5.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
360
[258] WHO. Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Technical Report Series 854. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1995.
[259] Eveleth PB, Andres R, Chumlea WC, Eiben O, Ge K, Harris T, et al. Uses and Interpretation of Anthropometry in the Elderly for the Assessment of Physical Status. Report to the Nutrition Unit of the World Health Organization: The Expert Subcommittee on the Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry in the Elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 1998;2(1):5-17.
[260] James WP, Ferro-Luzzi A, Waterlow JC. Definition of Chronic Energy Deficiency in Adults. Report of a Working Party of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1988 Dec;42(12):969-81.
[261] Deurenberg P, Deurenberg Yap M, Wang J, Lin FP, Schmidt G. The Impact of Body Build on the Relationship between Body Mass Index and Percent Body Fat. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):537-42.
[262] Deurenberg P, Deurenberg-Yap M, Guricci S. Asians Are Different from Caucasians and from Each Other in Their Body Mass Index/Body Fat Per Cent Relationship. Obes Rev. 2002 Aug;3(3):141-6.
[263] Deurenberg-Yap M, Schmidt G, van Staveren WA, Deurenberg P. The Paradox of Low Body Mass Index and High Body Fat Percentage among Chinese, Malays and Indians in Singapore. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Aug;24(8):1011-7.
[264] Deurenberg-Yap M, Chew SK, Deurenberg P. Elevated Body Fat Percentage and Cardiovascular Risks at Low Body Mass Index Levels among Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians. Obes Rev. 2002 Aug;3(3):209-15.
[265] Galanos AN, Pieper CF, Kussin PS, Winchell MT, Fulkerson WJ, Harrell FE, Jr., et al. Relationship of Body Mass Index to Subsequent Mortality among Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients. Support Investigators. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcome and Risks of Treatments. Crit Care Med. 1997 Dec;25(12):1962-8.
[266] Landi F, Zuccala G, Gambassi G, Incalzi RA, Manigrasso L, Pagano F, et al. Body Mass Index and Mortality among Older People Living in the Community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 Sep;47(9):1072-6.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
361
[267] Allison DB, Gallagher D, Heo M, Pi-Sunyer FX, Heymsfield SB. Body Mass Index and All-Cause Mortality among People Age 70 and Over: The Longitudinal Study of Aging. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997 Jun;21(6):424-31.
[268] Beck AM, Ovesen L. At Which Body Mass Index and Degree of Weight Loss Should Hospitalized Elderly Patients Be Considered at Nutritional Risk? Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;17(5):195-8.
[269] James PT, Leach R, Kalamara E, Shayeghi M. The Worldwide Obesity Epidemic. Obes Res. 2001 Nov;9 Suppl 4:228S-33S.
[270] Volpato S, Romagnoni F, Soattin L, Ble A, Leoci V, Bollini C, et al. Body Mass Index, Body Cell Mass, and 4-Year All-Cause Mortality Risk in Older Nursing Home Residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Jun;52(6):886-91.
[271] Landi F, Onder G, Gambassi G, Pedone C, Carbonin P, Bernabei R. Body Mass Index and Mortality among Hospitalized Patients. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Sep 25;160(17):2641-4.
[272] Cook Z, Kirk S, Lawrenson S, Sandford S. Use of BMI in the Assessment of Undernutrition in Older Subjects: Reflecting on Practice. Proc Nutr Soc. 2005 Aug;64(3):313-7.
[273] Heymsfield SB, McManus C, Stevens V, Smith J. Muscle Mass: Reliable Indicator of Protein-Energy Malnutrition Severity and Outcome. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 May;35(5 Suppl):1192-9.
[274] Durnin JV, Womersley J. Body Fat Assessed from Total Body Density and Its Estimation from Skinfold Thickness: Measurements on 481 Men and Women Aged from 16 to 72 Years. Br J Nutr. 1974 Jul;32(1):77-97.
[275] Gibson RS. Principles of Nutritional Assessment. 2nd edition ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2005:867-74.
[276] Frisancho AR. New Norms of Upper Limb Fat and Muscle Areas for Assessment of Nutritional Status. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Nov;34(11):2540-5.
[277] Campbell AJ, Spears GF, Brown JS, Busby WJ, Borrie MJ. Anthropometric Measurements as Predictors of Mortality in a Community Population Aged 70 Years and Over. Age Ageing. 1990 Mar;19(2):131-5.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
362
[278] Enoki H, Kuzuya M, Masuda Y, Hirakawa Y, Iwata M, Hasegawa J, et al. Anthropometric Measurements of Mid-Upper Arm as a Mortality Predictor for Community-Dwelling Japanese Elderly: The Nagoya Longitudinal Study of Frail Elderly (NLS-FE). Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;26(5):597-604.
[279] Kemm JR, Allcock J. The Distribution of Supposed Indicators of Nutritional Status in Elderly Patients. Age Ageing. 1984 Jan;13(1):21-8.
[281] Gibson RS. Principles of Nutritional Assessment. 2nd edition ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2005:290-3.
[282] Allard JP, Aghdassi E, McArthur M, McGeer A, Simor A, Abdolell M, et al. Nutrition Risk Factors for Survival in the Elderly Living in Canadian Long-Term Care Facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Jan;52(1):59-65.
[283] Gurney JM, Jelliffe DB. Arm Anthropometry in Nutritional Assessment: Nomogram for Rapid Calculation of Muscle Circumference and Cross-Sectional Muscle and Fat Areas. Am J Clin Nutr. 1973 Sep;26(9):912-5.
[284] Mitchell CO, Lipschitz DA. The Effect of Age and Sex on the Routinely Used Measurements to Assess the Nutritional Status of Hospitalized Patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Aug;36(2):340-9.
[285] Landi F, Russo A, Liperoti R, Pahor M, Tosato M, Capoluongo E, et al. Midarm Muscle Circumference, Physical Performance and Mortality: Results from the Aging and Longevity Study in the Sirente Geographic Area (ilSIRENTE Study). Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug;29(4):441-7.
[286] Heymsfield SB, McManus C, Smith J, Stevens V, Nixon DW. Anthropometric Measurement of Muscle Mass: Revised Equations for Calculating Bone-Free Arm Muscle Area. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Oct;36(4):680-90.
[287] Miller MD, Crotty M, Giles LC, Bannerman E, Whitehead C, Cobiac L, et al. Corrected Arm Muscle Area: An Independent Predictor of Long-Term Mortality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Jul;50(7):1272-7.
[288] Kwok T, Woo J, Chan HH, Lau E. The Reliability of Upper Limb Anthropometry in Older Chinese People. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997 Jul;21(7):542-7.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
363
[289] Chumlea WC, Steinbaugh ML, Roche AF, Mukherjee D, Gopalaswamy N. Nutritional Anthropometric Assessment in Elderly Persons 65 to 90 Years of Age. J Nutr Elder. 1985;4(4):39-51.
[290] Chandra RK, Imbach A, Moore C, Skelton D, Woolcott D. Nutrition of the Elderly. CMAJ. 1991 Dec 1;145(11):1475-87.
[291] Chumlea WC, Baumgartner RN. Status of Anthropometry and Body Composition Data in Elderly Subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1989 Nov;50(5 Suppl):1158-66; discussion 231-5.
[292] Chumlea WC, Roche AF, Rogers E. Replicability for Anthropometry in the Elderly. Hum Biol. 1984 May;56(2):329-37.
[293] Burr ML, Phillips KM. Anthropometric Norms in the Elderly. Br J Nutr. 1984 Mar;51(2):165-9.
[294] Jelliffe DB. The Assessment of the Nutritional Status of the Community (with Special Reference to Field Surveys in Developing Regions of the World). Monogr Ser World Health Organ. 1966;53:3-271.
[295] Bishop CW, Bowen PE, Ritchey SJ. Norms for Nutritional Assessment of American Adults by Upper Arm Anthropometry. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Nov;34(11):2530-9.
[296] Thuluvath PJ, Triger DR. How Valid Are Our Reference Standards of Nutrition? Nutrition. 1995 Nov-Dec;11(6):731-3.
[297] Frisancho AR. New Standards of Weight and Body Composition by Frame Size and Height for Assessment of Nutritional Status of Adults and the Elderly. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984 Oct;40(4):808-19.
[298] Side X, Mingtang S, Shuquan Z, Zhaomei M, Yinzhi X, Yujun L, et al. Anthropometric and Dietary Survey of Elderly Chinese. Br J Nutr. 1991 Nov;66(3):355-62.
[299] de Onis M, Habicht JP. Anthropometric Reference Data for International Use: Recommendations from a World Health Organization Expert Committee. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Oct;64(4):650-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
364
[300] Reeves SL, Varakamin C, Henry CJ. The Relationship between Arm-Span Measurement and Height with Special Reference to Gender and Ethnicity. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Jun;50(6):398-400.
[301] Myers SA, Takiguchi S, Yu M. Stature Estimated from Knee Height in Elderly Japanese Americans. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Feb;42(2):157-60.
[302] Kwok T, Lau E, Woo J. The Prediction of Height by Armspan in Older Chinese People. Ann Hum Biol. 2002 Nov-Dec;29(6):649-56.
[303] Weinbrenner T, Vioque J, Barber X, Asensio L. Estimation of Height and Body Mass Index from Demi-Span in Elderly Individuals. Gerontology. 2006;52(5):275-81.
[304] Franch-Arcas G. The Meaning of Hypoalbuminaemia in Clinical Practice. Clin Nutr 2001;20(3):265-9.
[305] Gariballa SE, Sinclair AJ. Assessment and Treatment of Nutritional Status in Stroke Patients. Postgrad Med J. 1998 Jul;74(873):395-9.
[306] Covinsky KE, Covinsky MH, Palmer RM, Sehgal AR. Serum Albumin Concentration and Clinical Assessments of Nutritional Status in Hospitalized Older People: Different Sides of Different Coins? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Apr;50(4):631-7.
[307] Lemonnier D, Acher S, Boukaiba N, Flament C, Doucet C, Piau A, et al. Discrepancy between Anthropometry and Biochemistry in the Assessment of the Nutritional Status of the Elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jun;45(6):281-6.
[308] Lesourd B. Nutrition: A Major Factor Influencing Immunity in the Elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2004;8(1):28-37.
[309] Lipschitz DA, Mitchell CO, Steele RW, Milton KY. Nutritional Evaluation and Supplementation of Elderly Subjects Participating in A "Meals on Wheels" Program. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1985 May-Jun;9(3):343-7.
[310] Kuzuya M, Kanda S, Koike T, Suzuki Y, Iguchi A. Lack of Correlation between Total Lymphocyte Count and Nutritional Status in the Elderly. Clin Nutr. 2005 Jun;24(3):427-32.
[311] Adamson AJ, Collerton J, Davies K, Foster E, Jagger C, Stamp E, et al. Nutrition in Advanced Age: Dietary Assessment in the Newcastle 85+ Study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Feb;63 Suppl 1:S6-18.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
365
[312] de Vries JH, de Groot LC, van Staveren WA. Dietary Assessment in Elderly People: Experiences Gained from Studies in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Feb;63 Suppl 1:S69-74.
[313] Rothenberg EM. Experience of Dietary Assessment and Validation from Three Swedish Studies in the Elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Feb;63 Suppl 1:S64-8.
[314] Gariballa SE, Forster SJ. Dietary Intake of Older Patients in Hospital and at Home: The Validity of Patient Kept Food Diaries. J Nutr Health Aging. 2008 Feb;12(2):102-6.
[317] Anderson CF, Moxness K, Meister J, Burritt MF. The Sensitivity and Specificity of Nutrition-Related Variables in Relationship to the Duration of Hospital Stay and the Rate of Complications. Mayo Clin Proc. 1984 Jul;59(7):477-83.
[318] Yang FL, Lee RP, Wang CH, Fang TC, Hsu BG. A Cohort Study of Subjective Global Assessment and Mortality in Taiwanese Hemodialysis Patients. Ren Fail. 2007;29(8):997-1001.
[319] Baker JP, Detsky AS, Whitwell J, Langer B, Jeejeebhoy KN. A Comparison of the Predictive Value of Nutritional Assessment Techniques. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1982;36(3):233-41.
[320] Detsky AS, Baker JP, Mendelson RA, Wolman SL, Wesson DE, Jeejeebhoy KN. Evaluating the Accuracy of Nutritional Assessment Techniques Applied to Hospitalized Patients: Methodology and Comparisons. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1984 Mar-Apr;8(2):153-9.
[321] Hirsch S, de Obaldia N, Petermann M, Rojo P, Barrientos C, Iturriaga H, et al. Subjective Global Assessment of Nutritional Status: Further Validation. Nutrition. 1991 Jan-Feb;7(1):35-7; discussion 7-8.
[322] Enia G, Sicuso C, Alati G, Zoccali C. Subjective Global Assessment of Nutrition in Dialysis Patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1993;8(10):1094-8.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
366
[323] Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry PJ, Nourhashemi F, Bennahum D, Lauque S, et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and Its Use in Grading the Nutritional State of Elderly Patients. Nutrition. 1999 Feb;15(2):116-22.
[324] Langkamp-Henken B, Hudgens J, Stechmiller JK, Herrlinger-Garcia KA. Mini Nutritional Assessment and Screening Scores Are Associated with Nutritional Indicators in Elderly People with Pressure Ulcers. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Oct;105(10):1590-6.
[325] Dempsey DT, Mullen JL. Prognostic Value of Nutritional Indices. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987 Sep-Oct;11(5 Suppl):109S-14S.
[326] ASPEN. Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Guidelines for the Use of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in Adult and Pediatric Patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(1 Suppl):1SA-138SA.
[327] Detsky AS, Baker JP, O'Rourke K, Johnston N, Whitwell J, Mendelson RA, et al. Predicting Nutrition-Associated Complications for Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987 Sep-Oct;11(5):440-6.
[328] Campbell KL, Ash S, Bauer JD, Davies PS. Evaluation of Nutrition Assessment Tools Compared with Body Cell Mass for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Chronic Kidney Disease. J Ren Nutr. 2007 May;17(3):189-95.
[329] Cooper BA, Bartlett LH, Aslani A, Allen BJ, Ibels LS, Pollock CA. Validity of Subjective Global Assessment as a Nutritional Marker in End-Stage Renal Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002 Jul;40(1):126-32.
[330] Niyongabo T, Melchior JC, Henzel D, Bouchaud O, Larouze B. Comparison of Methods for Assessing Nutritional Status in HIV-Infected Adults. Nutrition. 1999 Oct;15(10):740-3.
[331] Bowers JM, Dols CL. Subjective Global Assessment in HIV-Infected Patients. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 1996 Jul-Aug;7(4):83-9.
[332] Thoresen L, Fjeldstad I, Krogstad K, Kaasa S, Falkmer UG. Nutritional Status of Patients with Advanced Cancer: The Value of Using the Subjective Global Assessment of Nutritional Status as a Screening Tool. Palliat Med. 2002 Jan;16(1):33-42.
[333] Duerksen DR, Yeo TA, Siemens JL, O'Connor MP. The Validity and Reproducibility of Clinical Assessment of Nutritional Status in the Elderly. Nutrition. 2000 Sep;16(9):740-4.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
367
[334] Barbosa-Silva MC, Barros AJ. Indications and Limitations of the Use of Subjective Global Assessment in Clinical Practice: An Update. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2006 May;9(3):263-9.
[335] Isenring EA, Bauer JD, Banks M, Gaskill D. The Malnutrition Screening Tool Is a Useful Tool for Identifying Malnutrition Risk in Residential Aged Care. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009 Dec;22(6):545-50.
[336] Makhija S, Baker J. The Subjective Global Assessment: A Review of Its Use in Clinical Practice. Nutr Clin Pract. 2008 Aug-Sep;23(4):405-9.
[337] Keith JN. Bedside Nutrition Assessment Past, Present, and Future: A Review of the Subjective Global Assessment. Nutr Clin Pract. 2008 Aug-Sep;23(4):410-6.
[338] Baker JP, Detsky AS, Wesson DE, Wolman SL, Stewart S, Whitewell J, et al. Nutritional Assessment: A Comparison of Clinical Judgement and Objective Measurements. N Engl J Med. 1982 Apr 22;306(16):969-72.
[339] Guigoz Y, vellas B, Garry PJ. Mini Nutritional Assessment: A Practical Assessment Tool for Grading the Nutritional State of Elderly Patients. Facts and Research in Gerontology (Supplement:Nutrition). 1994:15-59.
[340] Vellas B, Villars H, Abellan G, Soto ME, Rolland Y, Guigoz Y, et al. Overview of the MNA--Its History and Challenges. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Nov-Dec;10(6):456-63; discussion 63-5.
[341] Beck AM, Ovesen L, Osler M. The 'Mini Nutritional Assessment' (MNA) and the 'Determine Your Nutritional Health' Checklist (NSI Checklist) as Predictors of Morbidity and Mortality in an Elderly Danish Population. Br J Nutr. 1999 Jan;81(1):31-6.
[342] Beck AM, Ovesen L, Schroll M. Validation of the Resident Assessment Instrument Triggers in the Detection of under-Nutrition. Age Ageing. 2001 Mar;30(2):161-5.
[343] Soini H, Routasalo P, Lagstrom H. Characteristics of the Mini-Nutritional Assessment in Elderly Home-Care Patients. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jan;58(1):64-70.
[344] Murphy MC, Brooks CN, New SA, Lumbers ML. The Use of the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) Tool in Elderly Orthopaedic Patients. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;54(7):555-62.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
368
[345] Chumlea WC. The State of the Mini Nutritional Assessment? Nutrition. 1999 Feb;15(2):159-61.
[346] Chumlea WC. Is the MNA Valid in Different Populations and across Practice Settings? J Nutr Health Aging. 2006 Nov-Dec;10(6):524-7; discussion 7-33.
[347] Hasse J, Strong S, Gorman MA, Liepa G. Subjective Global Assessment: Alternative Nutrition-Assessment Technique for Liver-Transplant Candidates. Nutrition. 1993 Jul-Aug;9(4):339-43.
[348] Bleda MJ, Bolibar I, Pares R, Salva A. Reliability of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) in Institutionalized Elderly People. J Nutr Health Aging. 2002;6(2):134-7.
[349] Capra S. Nutrition Assessment or Nutrition Screening--How Much Information Is Enough to Make a Diagnosis of Malnutrition in Acute Care? Nutrition. 2007 Apr;23(4):356-7.
[350] Volkert D, Saeglitz C, Gueldenzoph H, Sieber CC, Stehle P. Undiagnosed Malnutrition and Nutrition-Related Problems in Geriatric Patients. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14(5):387-92.
[351] Klein S, Kinney J, Jeejeebhoy K, Alpers D, Hellerstein M, Murray M, et al. Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice: Review of Published Data and Recommendations for Future Research Directions. National Institutes of Health, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and American Society for Clinical Nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997 May-Jun;21(3):133-56.
[352] Waitzberg DL, Correia MI. Nutritional Assessment in the Hospitalized Patient. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2003 Sep;6(5):531-8.
[353] Amaral TF, Antunes A, Cabral S, Alves P, Kent-Smith L. An Evaluation of Three Nutritional Screening Tools in a Portuguese Oncology Centre. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2008 Dec;21(6):575-83.
[354] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth ed: Washington, DC 1994:142-3.
[355] Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A New Depression Scale Designed to Be Sensitive to Change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Apr;134:382-9.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
369
[356] Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a Mental Test Score for Assessment of Mental Impairment in the Elderly. Age Ageing. 1972 Nov;1(4):233-8.
[357] Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A New Method of Classifying Prognostic Comorbidity in Longitudinal Studies: Development and Validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83.
[358] Roveti GC, Horn SD, Kreitzer SL. "AS-SCORE": A Multi-Attribute Clinical Index of Illness Severity. Quality Review Bulletin. 1980 Jul;6(7):25-31.
[359] Hickson M, Frost G. A Comparison of Three Methods for Estimating Height in the Acutely Ill Elderly Population. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2003 Feb;16(1):13-20.
[360] Nestle-Nutrition-Institute. A Guide to Completing the Mini Nutritional Assessment MNA. [cited 2010 3 February]; Available from: http://www.mna-elderly.com/forms/mna_guide_english.pdf
[361] Womersley J, Durnin JVGA. An Experimental Study on Variability of Measurements of Skinfold Thickness on Young Adults. Human Biology. 1973;45:281-92
[362] The Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Survey into Health Problems of Elderly People: A Comparison of Self-Report with Proxy Information. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:684-97.
[363] O'Daly BJ, Walsh JC, Quinlan JF, Falk GA, Stapleton R, Quinlan WR, et al. Serum Albumin and Total Lymphocyte Count as Predictors of Outcome in Hip Fractures. Clin Nutr. Feb;29(1):89-93.
[364] Koval KJ, Maurer SG, Su ET, Aharonoff GB, Zuckerman JD. The Effects of Nutritional Status on Outcome after Hip Fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Mar-Apr;13(3):164-9.
[365] Lim PP, Ng LL, Chiam PC, Ong PS, Ngui FT, Sahadevan S. Validation and Comparison of Three Brief Depression Scales in an Elderly Chinese Population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000 Sep;15(9):824-30.
[366] Charney P, Malone A, eds. ADA Pocket Guide to Nutrition Assessment. Chicago: American Dietetic Association 2004.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
370
[367] Shinar D, Gross CR, Bronstein KS, Licata-Gehr EE, Eden DT, Cabrera AR, et al. Reliability of the Activities of Daily Living Scale and Its Use in Telephone Interview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Oct;68(10):723-8.
[368] Sahadevan S, Tan NJ, Tan T, Tan S. Cognitive Testing of Elderly Chinese People in Singapore: Influence of Education and Age on Normative Scores. Age Ageing. 1997 Nov;26(6):481-6.
[369] Stratton RJ, Green CJ, Elia M. Disease-Related Malnutrition: An Evidence-Based Approach to Treatment. Wallingford: CABI Publishing 2003:69-71.
[370] Wright L, Cotter D, Hickson M, Frost G. Comparison of Energy and Protein Intakes of Older People Consuming a Texture Modified Diet with a Normal Hospital Diet. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005 Jun;18(3):213-9.
[371] de Andrade FB, de Franca Caldas A, Jr., Kitoko PM. Relationship between Oral Health, Nutrient Intake and Nutritional Status in a Sample of Brazilian Elderly People. Gerodontology. 2009 Mar;26(1):40-5.
[372] Chan YH. Biostatistics 104: Correlational Analysis. Singapore Med J. 2003 Dec;44(12):614-9.
[373] MacIntosh C, Morley JE, Chapman IM. The Anorexia of Aging. Nutrition. 2000 Oct;16(10):983-95.
[374] Tosteson AN, Weinstein MC, Wittenberg J, Begg CB. Roc Curve Regression Analysis: The Use of Ordinal Regression Models for Diagnostic Test Assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Nov;102 Suppl 8:73-8.
[375] Borowiak E, Kostka T. Usefulness of Short (MNA-SF) and Full Version of the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) in Examining the Nutritional State of Older Persons. New Medicine. 2003;4:125-9.
[376] Cohendy R, Rubenstein LZ, Eledjam JJ. The Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form for Preoperative Nutritional Evaluation of Elderly Patients. Aging (Milano). 2001 Aug;13(4):293-7.
Malnutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients from A Singapore Acute Hospital
371
[378] Miller MD, Bannerman E, Daniels LA, Crotty M. Lower Limb Fracture, Cognitive Impairment and Risk of Subsequent Malnutrition: A Prospective Evaluation of Dietary Energy and Protein Intake on an Orthopaedic Ward. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;60(7):853-61.
[379] Stratton RJ, Elia M. Deprivation Linked to Malnutrition Risk and Mortality in Hospital. Br J Nutr. 2006 Nov;96(5):870-6.
[380] Barone L, Milosavljevic M, Gazibarich B. Assessing the Older Person: Is the MNA a More Appropriate Nutritional Assessment Tool Than the SGA? J Nutr Health Aging. 2003;7(1):13-7.
[381] Bauer J, Capra S. Comparison of a Malnutrition Screening Tool with Subjective Global Assessment in Hospitalised Patients with Cancer--Sensitivity and Specificity. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(3):257-60.
[382] Bauer J, Capra S, Ferguson M. Use of the Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) as a Nutrition Assessment Tool in Patients with Cancer. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Aug;56(8):779-85.
[383] Green S, McDougall T. Screening and Assessing the Nutritional Status of Older People. Nurs Older People. 2002 Sep;14(6):31-2.
[384] Donini LM, Savina C, Rosano A, Cannella C. Systematic Review of Nutritional Status Evaluation and Screening Tools in the Elderly. J Nutr Health Aging. 2007 Sep-Oct;11(5):421-32.
[385] Wallace JI, Schwartz RS, LaCroix AZ, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Involuntary Weight Loss in Older Outpatients: Incidence and Clinical Significance. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Apr;43(4):329-37.
[386] White JV, Dwyer JT, Posner BM, Ham RJ, Lipschitz DA, Wellman NS. Nutrition Screening Initiative: Development and Implementation of the Public Awareness Checklist and Screening Tools. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992 Feb;92(2):163-7.
[387] Jensen GL, Friedmann JM, Coleman CD, Smiciklas-Wright H. Screening for Hospitalization and Nutritional Risks among Community-Dwelling Older Persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Aug;74(2):201-5.