OBJECTIVE: We tested the feasibility of using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool among hospitalized medical patients in Beijing and Baltimore and determined the prevalence of nutritional risk, nutritional support, and nutritional risk changes from admission to discharge or over a 2-wk period. METHODS: A comparative design was used to compare data collected at Beijing and Baltimore teaching hospitals from April 2006 to April 2007. A total of 500 consecutive medical patients, 300 from Beijing and 200 from Baltimore, who met the inclusion criteria on admission and provided informed consent were enrolled. RESULTS: Among the hospitalized patients, 94.0% in Beijing and 99.5% in Baltimore were able to complete the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. Prevalences of nutritional risk were 39.0% and 51.0%, respectively (P < 0.05). For the patients at nutritional risk, only 17.9% in Beijing and 14.7% in Baltimore used parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition (P = 0.518). For non-risk patients, 3.3% in Beijing used nutritional support, whereas no patient in Baltimore used this support (P = 0.095). Prevalences of nutritional risk changed from 39.0% to 38.5% (P = 0.892) during hospitalization in Beijing and from 51.0% to 41.4% in Baltimore (P = 0.055). CONCLUSION: The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was feasible in the Beijing and Baltimore teaching hospitals. The prevalence of nutritional risk observed in Baltimore was higher than that in Beijing. No difference was observed in the application rate of nutritional support and changes in nutritional risk during hospitalization between these two hospitals.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the feasibility of using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool among hospitalized medical patients in Beijing and Baltimore and determined the prevalence of nutritional risk, nutritional support, and nutritional risk changes from admission to discharge or over a 2-wk period. METHODS: A comparative design was used to compare data collected at Beijing and Baltimore teaching hospitals from April 2006 to April 2007. A total of 500 consecutive medical patients, 300 from Beijing and 200 from Baltimore, who met the inclusion criteria on admission and provided informed consent were enrolled. RESULTS: Among the hospitalized patients, 94.0% in Beijing and 99.5% in Baltimore were able to complete the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. Prevalences of nutritional risk were 39.0% and 51.0%, respectively (P < 0.05). For the patients at nutritional risk, only 17.9% in Beijing and 14.7% in Baltimore used parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition (P = 0.518). For non-risk patients, 3.3% in Beijing used nutritional support, whereas no patient in Baltimore used this support (P = 0.095). Prevalences of nutritional risk changed from 39.0% to 38.5% (P = 0.892) during hospitalization in Beijing and from 51.0% to 41.4% in Baltimore (P = 0.055). CONCLUSION: The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was feasible in the Beijing and Baltimore teaching hospitals. The prevalence of nutritional risk observed in Baltimore was higher than that in Beijing. No difference was observed in the application rate of nutritional support and changes in nutritional risk during hospitalization between these two hospitals.