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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grosshauser, Franz J., Kiesswetter, Eva, Torbahn, Gabriel, Sieber, Cornel C., Volkert, Dorothee
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