Protein and energy intake improved by in-between meals: An intervention study in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Disease related malnutrition is a major problem in hospitals. Malnutrition in hospitalized patients is caused by many factors. Among these factors are decreased appetite and early satiety, and reaching nutritional requirements in nutritional risk patients is a challenge when using ordinary energy and protein dense food. The aim of this study was to examine if total protein and energy intake in medical and surgical patients at nutritional risk could be improved by protein fortified and energy rich in-between meals. METHODS: An assortment of fortified in-between meals including 10 g of protein was developed based on patient preferences and served in the Departments of Lung Medicine and Abdominal Surgery for a period of three months. Nutrition intake was recorded before and after intervention. RESULTS: Food intake records were collected from a total of 92 patients, (46 before and 46 after intervention). The total amount of protein intake per in-between meal was increased from 2,6 g to 10,3 g. Total daily protein intake increased from 49% to 88% (p < 0.00) and total energy intake from 74% to 109% (p < 0.00) of requirements. CONCLUSION: Protein and energy intake for surgical and medical patients at in-between meals as well as total daily intake increased significantly. Recommended average level for individually measured requirements was reached.

Protein and energy intake improved by breakfast intervention in hospital.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Undernutrition affects about 40% of patients in hospitals. Ordinary food is recommended as the first choice to prevent and correct undernutrition. Meanwhile, sufficient intake, especially regarding protein, is difficult to reach, in patients at nutritional risk. The aim of this study was to improve protein intake at breakfast to at least 20% of total daily requirement or at least 20 g. METHODS: A protein rich breakfast including 20 g of protein was served in the departments of heart and lung surgery and vascular surgery for three months. Nutrition intake was registered before and after intervention. RESULTS: Food intake records were collected from 32 and 30 patients respectively, mean age 69 (SD 8) years. At breakfast, protein intake was improved from 14% of individual requirements to 22% (p<0.001) and energy intake was improved from 18% to 25% (p=0.01). Total amount of protein intake for breakfast was increased from 14 g to 20 g (p<0.002). Total daily protein intake increased from 64% to 77% (p=0.05) and total energy intake from 76% to 99% (p<0.01) of requirements. CONCLUSION: Protein and energy intake for surgical patients at breakfast as well as total daily intake was significantly increased to meet recommended average level for minimum individually measured requirements.

Multi-modal intervention improved oral intake in hospitalized patients. A one year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Good nutritional practice (GNP) includes screening, nutrition plan and monitoring, and is mandatory for targeted treatment of malnourished patients in hospital. AIMS: To optimize energy- and protein-intake in patients at nutritional risk and to improve GNP in a hospital setting. METHODS: A 12-months observational multi-modal intervention study was done, using the top-down and bottom-up principle. All hospitalized patients (>3 days) were included. SETTING: A university hospital with 758 beds and all specialities. MEASUREMENTS: Record audit of GNP, energy- and protein-intake by 24-h recall, patient interviews and staff questionnaire before and after the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Based on pre-measurements, nutrition support teams in each department made targeted action plans, supervised by an expert team. Education, diagnose-specific nutrition plans, improved menus and eating environment, and awareness were initiated. STATISTICS: Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test was used for ordinal data, and Pearson Chi square test for nominative data. RESULTS: Overall 545 patients participated (287 before/258 after) from 26/22 departments. There were no significant differences regarding sex, age, BMI or previous weight loss before and after the intervention. Result-indicators: Energy intake improved from 52% to 68% (p < 0.007), and protein intake from 33% to 52% (p < 0.001) (>75% of requirements). Intake of less than 50% of requirements decreased with 50%. Process-indicators: Screening improved from 56% to 77% (p < 0.001), nutrition plans from 21% to 56% (p < 0.0001), and monitoring food intake from 29% to 58% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Intake of energy and protein as well as GNP improved using a multi-modal top-down and bottom-up approach.