Cargando…
Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting
Malnutrition (MN) is widespread in nursing homes. Sometimes, but not always, nutritional interventions (NIs) are made, and the reasons for or against NIs are unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe these reasons for residents with and without MN according to nurses’ subjective...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34562991 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030090 |
_version_ | 1784576847351119872 |
---|---|
author | Grosshauser, Franz J. Kiesswetter, Eva Torbahn, Gabriel Sieber, Cornel C. Volkert, Dorothee |
author_facet | Grosshauser, Franz J. Kiesswetter, Eva Torbahn, Gabriel Sieber, Cornel C. Volkert, Dorothee |
author_sort | Grosshauser, Franz J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Malnutrition (MN) is widespread in nursing homes. Sometimes, but not always, nutritional interventions (NIs) are made, and the reasons for or against NIs are unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe these reasons for residents with and without MN according to nurses’ subjective judgement and according to objective signs of MN. The nutritional status of 246 nursing home residents was subjectively judged by nurses (MN, at risk of MN, no MN) and objectively assessed by body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL), and low food intake. NIs (enriched meals and/or oral nutritional supplements) were recorded using a standardized questionnaire, and nurses’ main reasons for (not) giving NIs were obtained in an open question. Of the residents, 11.0% were subjectively malnourished, and 25.6% were at risk of MN; 32.9% were malnourished according to objective criteria. Overall, 29.7% of the residents received NIs, 70.4% of those with MN as assessed by the nurses, 53.0% of those with objective MN, and 11.0% and 18.0% of non-malnourished residents, respectively. Reasons for NIs most often stated were low intake (47.9%), WL (23.3%), and low BMI (13.7%). Reasons against NIs mostly mentioned were adequate BMI (32.9%) and sufficient intake (24.3%). The lack of NIs for residents with MN was partially—but not always—explained by valid reasons. As residents without MN frequently received NIs, criteria for both MN rating and providing NIs, require closer scrutiny. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8482186 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84821862021-10-01 Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting Grosshauser, Franz J. Kiesswetter, Eva Torbahn, Gabriel Sieber, Cornel C. Volkert, Dorothee Geriatrics (Basel) Article Malnutrition (MN) is widespread in nursing homes. Sometimes, but not always, nutritional interventions (NIs) are made, and the reasons for or against NIs are unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to describe these reasons for residents with and without MN according to nurses’ subjective judgement and according to objective signs of MN. The nutritional status of 246 nursing home residents was subjectively judged by nurses (MN, at risk of MN, no MN) and objectively assessed by body mass index (BMI), weight loss (WL), and low food intake. NIs (enriched meals and/or oral nutritional supplements) were recorded using a standardized questionnaire, and nurses’ main reasons for (not) giving NIs were obtained in an open question. Of the residents, 11.0% were subjectively malnourished, and 25.6% were at risk of MN; 32.9% were malnourished according to objective criteria. Overall, 29.7% of the residents received NIs, 70.4% of those with MN as assessed by the nurses, 53.0% of those with objective MN, and 11.0% and 18.0% of non-malnourished residents, respectively. Reasons for NIs most often stated were low intake (47.9%), WL (23.3%), and low BMI (13.7%). Reasons against NIs mostly mentioned were adequate BMI (32.9%) and sufficient intake (24.3%). The lack of NIs for residents with MN was partially—but not always—explained by valid reasons. As residents without MN frequently received NIs, criteria for both MN rating and providing NIs, require closer scrutiny. MDPI 2021-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8482186/ /pubmed/34562991 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030090 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Grosshauser, Franz J. Kiesswetter, Eva Torbahn, Gabriel Sieber, Cornel C. Volkert, Dorothee Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title | Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title_full | Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title_fullStr | Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title_short | Reasons for and against Nutritional Interventions. An Exploration in the Nursing Home Setting |
title_sort | reasons for and against nutritional interventions. an exploration in the nursing home setting |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34562991 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030090 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grosshauserfranzj reasonsforandagainstnutritionalinterventionsanexplorationinthenursinghomesetting AT kiesswettereva reasonsforandagainstnutritionalinterventionsanexplorationinthenursinghomesetting AT torbahngabriel reasonsforandagainstnutritionalinterventionsanexplorationinthenursinghomesetting AT siebercornelc reasonsforandagainstnutritionalinterventionsanexplorationinthenursinghomesetting AT volkertdorothee reasonsforandagainstnutritionalinterventionsanexplorationinthenursinghomesetting |