Evolution of the diagnosis of malnutrition in adults: a primer for clinicians.

During the last two decades, the definition, diagnosis, and management of malnutrition have significantly evolved. Malnutrition is generally defined as deficiencies, excesses, or imbalances in a person's intake of energy and/or nutrients. While malnutrition is associated with a significantly increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost, it is often underdiagnosed both in healthcare and community settings. One contributing factor is the lack of a consensus on its definition and appropriate diagnostic indicators. In the current article, we review the evolution of frameworks for the diagnosis of malnutrition. Recently published consensuses by prominent clinical nutrition societies have established a trajectory for the uniform global diagnosis of malnutrition. Limiting the use of body mass index (BMI) as a diagnostic criterion while emphasizing the use of muscle mass enables a more consistent and accurate diagnosis of malnutrition in the clinical setting. Guidance for the unified methodology and terminology for diagnosing malnutrition, such as the one proposed in the current article will enable policy makers to systematically address the two faces of malnutrition, starvation- and disease-related malnutrition applicable to both pediatric and adult populations. Policies and programs that could address issues of food insecurity and scarcity as well as early diagnosis and management of disease-related malnutrition will empower better care of community nutrition.

Utilization and validation of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM): A scoping review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The diagnosis of malnutrition remains a significant challenge despite various published diagnostic criteria. In 2018, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) published a set of evidence-based criteria as a framework for malnutrition diagnosis in adults. A scoping review was conducted to understand how the GLIM criteria have been used in published literature and compare the reported validation methods to published validation guidance. METHODS: Dialog and Dimensions databases were searched by publication date (January 1, 2019, through January 29, 2021). Data were extracted and mapped to the research objectives. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were reviewed; 32% were in patients at least 65 years of age; 67% occurred in hospitals. The majority were cohort studies (61%). Fifty-seven percent employed all 5 GLIM criteria. Regarding phenotypic criteria, 92% used low BMI, and 45% applied anthropometry as a marker for muscle mass, of which 54% used calf circumference. Regarding etiologic criteria, 72% used reduced food intake/assimilation, and 85% applied inflammation/disease burden. Validation of GLIM criteria was described in 77% of publications. CONCLUSIONS: The GLIM criteria have been studied extensively since their publication. Low BMI was the phenotypic criterion used most often, whereas both reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden were frequently employed as the etiologic criteria. However, how the criteria were combined and how validation was conducted were not clear in most studies. Adequately powered, methodologically sound validation studies using the complete GLIM criteria are needed in various patient populations and disease settings to assess validity for the diagnosis of malnutrition.

Examining guidelines and new evidence in oncology nutrition: a position paper on gaps and opportunities in multimodal approaches to improve patient care.

Malnutrition, muscle loss, and cachexia are prevalent in cancer and remain key challenges in oncology today. These conditions are frequently underrecognized and undertreated and have devastating consequences for patients. Early nutrition screening/assessment and intervention are associated with improved patient outcomes. As a multifaceted disease, cancer requires multimodal care that integrates supportive interventions, specifically nutrition and exercise, to improve nutrient intake, muscle mass, physical functioning, quality of life, and treatment outcomes. An integrated team of healthcare providers that incorporates societies' recommendations into clinical practice can help achieve the best possible outcomes. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in oncology, nutrition, exercise, and medicine participated in a 2-day virtual roundtable in October 2020 to discuss gaps and opportunities in oncology nutrition, alone and in combination with exercise, relative to current evidence and international societies' recommendations. The panel recommended five principles to optimize clinical oncology practice: (1) position oncology nutrition at the center of multidisciplinary care; (2) partner with colleagues and administrators to integrate a nutrition care process into the multidisciplinary cancer care approach; (3) screen all patients for malnutrition risk at diagnosis and regularly throughout treatment; (4) combine exercise and nutrition interventions before (e.g., prehabilitation), during, and after treatment as oncology standard of care to optimize nutrition status and muscle mass; and (5) incorporate a patient-centered approach into multidisciplinary care.

Prevalence of Malnutrition Risk and the Impact of Nutrition Risk on Hospital Outcomes: Results From nutritionDay in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition risk estimates vary greatly, and no robust data on the association between food intake and outcomes exist for hospitals in the United States (U.S.). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of malnutrition risk and to evaluate the impact of food intake on mortality using the nutritionDay in the U.S. dataset. METHODS: This study analyzed data from 2009 to 2015 for all adult patients from participating hospitals. Prevalence of malnutrition risk was determined by mapping self-reported nutritionDay survey questions to the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST). Fine and Gray competing-risk analysis with clustering was used to evaluate the impact of nutrition risk and food intake on patients' 30-day in-hospital mortality, while controlling for age, mobility, and other disease-related factors. RESULTS: Analysis included data from 9959 adult patients from 601 wards. The overall prevalence of malnutrition risk (MST score ≥2) was 32.7%. On nutritionDay, 32.1% of patients ate a quarter of their meal or less. Hospital mortality hazard ratio was 3.24 (95% CI: [1.73, 6.07]; P-value < 0.001) for patients eating a quarter compared with those who ate all their meal and increased to 5.99 (95% CI: [3.03, 11.84]; P-value < 0.0001) for patients eating nothing despite being allowed to eat. CONCLUSION: This study provides the most robust estimate of malnutrition risk in U.S. hospitalized patients to date, finding that approximately 1 in 3 are at risk. Additionally, patients who have diminished meal intake experience increased mortality risk. These results highlight the ongoing issue of malnutrition in the hospital setting.

Assessment of the Nutrition Care Process in US Hospitals Using a Web-Based Tool Demonstrates the Need for Quality Improvement in Malnutrition Diagnosis and Discharge Care.

Background: Malnutrition in hospitalized patients is a pervasive problem in the United States. To our knowledge, although malnutrition has been acknowledged as a concern for >40 y, it has not yet been well addressed with a systematic, process improvement approach. Objectives: We aimed to characterize the current nutrition care process in US hospitals to establish a baseline for improvements. We also aimed to demonstrate the application of a web-based quality improvement tool as a simple approach to address malnutrition in hospitalized patients. Methods: We established a web-based tool to measure and assess nutrition care practices from hospital electronic medical records. Individual institutions self-selected to participate and were assigned a unique identifier to input data. Aggregated patient data from registered institutions were assessed. Data from all institutions were combined and are presented as the totals for each variable. Results: Of 243 registered users, 97 provided data and 150 reports were included in the analysis, resulting in a total of 107,106 patients. Almost all patients (89.98%) were screened for malnutrition risk within 24 h of admission, and ∼30% were at risk for malnutrition. Of those at risk, ∼65% received a registered dietitian nutritionist consultation or an order for an oral nutrition supplement. The rate of malnutrition diagnosis for those at risk was ∼14%, and <10% of patients received a recommendation or prescription for an oral nutrition supplement at discharge. Conclusions: Malnutrition remains an issue for hospitalized patients, particularly the gap between those screened as at risk and those diagnosed with malnutrition. Moreover, discharge recommendations for patients who are screened as at risk for malnutrition are also lacking. These data demonstrate that a web-based quality improvement tool could be used to capture the nutrition care practice at an institution level to provide directed approaches for addressing hospital malnutrition and improving care of patients at risk for malnutrition.

Malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome: is this the future of nutrition screening and assessment for older adults?

Malnutrition is common across varying patient populations, particularly older adults, and sarcopenia prevalence increases with advancing age. Both malnutrition and sarcopenia are associated with substantial adverse outcomes affecting both the patient and the healthcare system, including increased morbidity, mortality, rehospitalization rates, and healthcare costs. Healthcare practitioners may assess patients for either malnutrition or sarcopenia; however, many patients clinically present with both conditions, resulting in the syndrome, Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome, which is the clinical presentation of both malnutrition and accelerated age-associated loss of lean body mass, strength, and/or functionality. Clinicians are urged to screen, assess, and treat these conditions currently so as to adequately address the full spectrum of patients' nutritional issues. By examining aspects of both conditions, clinicians can more fully assess their patients' clinical and nutritional status and can tailor targeted therapies to meet their needs and improve outcomes. This proposed syndrome embodies the inherent association of malnutrition and sarcopenia, highlighting their combined impact on clinical outcomes. The objective of this review paper is to characterize Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome to advance clinical practice, by providing clinicians with the necessary background information to integrate nutritional assessment along with loss of muscle mass and functionality in their everyday clinical practice.

The National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study: outcomes of pressure ulcer treatments in long-term care.

OBJECTIVES: To identify resident, wound, and treatment characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing in long-term care residents. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling. SETTING: Ninety-five long-term care facilities participating in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred eighty-two residents, aged 18 and older, with length of stay of 14 days or longer, who had at least one Stage II to IV PrU. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected for each resident over a 12-week period included resident characteristics, treatment characteristics, and change in PrU area. Data were obtained from medical records, Minimum Data Set, and other records. RESULTS: Two multiple regression models, one for each stage grouping (Stage II, Stage III and IV), were completed. The area of Stage II PrU was reduced more with moist (F=21.91, P<.001) than with dry (F=13.41, P<.001) dressings. PrUs cleaned with saline or soap showed less decrease in area (F=12.34, P<.001) than PrUs cleaned with other cleansers such as antiseptic, antibiotic, or commercial cleansers. Change in area of Stage III and IV PrUs was related to sufficient enteral feeding (F=5.23, P=.02), enteral feeding without higher acuity levels (F=3.94, P=.048), size of PrU (very large (F=120.89, P=.001) and large (F=27.82, P=.001)), and type of dressing (moist (F=14.70, P<.001) and dry (F=5.88, P=.02)). Stage III and IV PrUs increased in area when debrided (F=5.97, P=.02). The overall models were significant (Stage III and IV, F=20.30, coefficient of determination (R2)=0.06, P<.001; Stage II, F=40.28, R2=0.13, P<.001) but explained little of the variation in change in PrU area. CONCLUSION: In this sample of nursing facility residents, use of moist dressings (Stage II, Stage III and IV) and adequate nutritional support (Stage III and IV) are strong predictors of PrU healing.

Long-term care liability for pressure ulcers.

More than 20% of residents who have been in long-term care (LTC) facilities for 2 or more years will develop at least one pressure ulcer (PU). Residents suffer pain, disfigurement, and decreased quality of life, and their risk of illness and death increases. LTC facilities face censure from residents, their families, and surveyors and the threat of expensive lawsuits. Lawsuits are typically based on contentions of residents with a PU--or their advocates--that the LTC facility was negligent and failed to provide the care that, by industry standards, it must provide to prevent or manage such wounds (managing pressure, incontinence, and nutrition). In this article, data from 1999 and 2002 are presented, showing that lawsuits related to PUs are increasingly common and costly for LTC owners and care providers. Residents realized some type of recovery against the facility in 87% of the cases (verdicts for the resident plus settlements) and were awarded amounts as high as $312 million in damages. Even LTC administrators who believe that care in their facility equals or exceeds industry standards often settle lawsuits out of court to avoid jury verdicts. The data also show that jury awards were highest for PUs caused by multiple factors and that the highest awards for PUs caused by a single factor were seen when that factor was inadequate nutrition. LTC providers can help improve the health and quality of life of their residents, improve survey results, and minimize their risk of expensive lawsuits by developing, implementing, and documenting a plan of basic measures to prevent PUs.