Randi J Tangvik1, Grethe S Tell2, Anne Berit Guttormsen3, John A Eisman4, Andreas Henriksen5, Roy Miodini Nilsen6, Anette Hylen Ranhoff7. 1. Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Science 2, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Kavli Research Centre for Geriatrics and Dementia, Haraldsplass Deacon Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: randi.tangvik@helse-bergen.no. 2. Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: grethe.tell@igs.uib.no. 3. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Science 1, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: anne.guttormsen@helse-bergen.no. 4. Garvan Institute for Medical Research, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Notre Dame and UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: j.eisman@garvan.org.au. 5. Kavli Research Centre for Geriatrics and Dementia, Haraldsplass Deacon Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: andreas.h.henriksen@gmail.com. 6. Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: roy.miodini.nilsen@helse-bergen.no. 7. Department of Clinical Science 2, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Kavli Research Centre for Geriatrics and Dementia, Haraldsplass Deacon Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: anette.ranhoff@k2.uib.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of nutritional risk varies according to several factors. We aimed to determine the nutritional risk profile in a large Norwegian hospital population, specifically by age, disease category and hospital department. METHODS: Nutritional surveys are performed routinely at Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. During eight surveys in 2008-2009, 3279 patients were categorized according to the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS 2002). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 29%, highest in patients with infections (51%), cancer (44%) and pulmonary diseases (42%), and in the departments of intensive care (74%), oncology (49%) and pulmonology (43%). Further, nutritional risk was identified in 40% of patients aged ≥80 years compared to 21% of age <40 years and 35% of patients with emergency admissions compared to 19% with elective admissions. Related to the tool components, nutritional risk was most common in patients with low BMI (<20.5 kg/m(2)) (95%) and/or high comorbidity (>7 diagnoses) (45%). However it was also high in patients with BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) (12%) and in those with fewer than 7 diagnoses (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional risk was most common among patients with high age, low BMI, more comorbidity, and with infections, cancer or pulmonary diseases, and patients who were discharged to nursing homes. However, the highest number of patients at nutritional risk had BMI in the normal or overweight range, were 60-80 years old, and were found in departments of general medicine or surgery. Importantly, younger patients and overweight patients were also affected. Thus, nutritional risk screening should be performed in the total patient population in order to identify, within this heterogeneous group of patients, those at nutritional risk.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of nutritional risk varies according to several factors. We aimed to determine the nutritional risk profile in a large Norwegian hospital population, specifically by age, disease category and hospital department. METHODS: Nutritional surveys are performed routinely at Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. During eight surveys in 2008-2009, 3279 patients were categorized according to the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS 2002). RESULTS: The overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 29%, highest in patients with infections (51%), cancer (44%) and pulmonary diseases (42%), and in the departments of intensive care (74%), oncology (49%) and pulmonology (43%). Further, nutritional risk was identified in 40% of patients aged ≥80 years compared to 21% of age <40 years and 35% of patients with emergency admissions compared to 19% with elective admissions. Related to the tool components, nutritional risk was most common in patients with low BMI (<20.5 kg/m(2)) (95%) and/or high comorbidity (>7 diagnoses) (45%). However it was also high in patients with BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) (12%) and in those with fewer than 7 diagnoses (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional risk was most common among patients with high age, low BMI, more comorbidity, and with infections, cancer or pulmonary diseases, and patients who were discharged to nursing homes. However, the highest number of patients at nutritional risk had BMI in the normal or overweight range, were 60-80 years old, and were found in departments of general medicine or surgery. Importantly, younger patients and overweight patients were also affected. Thus, nutritional risk screening should be performed in the total patient population in order to identify, within this heterogeneous group of patients, those at nutritional risk.
Authors: Eli Skeie; Anne Mette Koch; Stig Harthug; Unni Fosse; Kari Sygnestveit; Roy Miodini Nilsen; Randi J Tangvik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240