Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition: A modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation. METHODS: A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. RESULTS: The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall "agree" or "strongly agree" responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.

Guidance for assessment of the inflammation etiologic criterion for the GLIM diagnosis of malnutrition: A modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation in support of the etiologic criterion for inflammation. METHODS: A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified-Delphi review. A multi-round review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. RESULTS: The final round of review was highly favorable with 99 % overall "agree" or "strongly agree" responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (mg/dL or mg/L) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgement based upon underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.

Interprofessional implementation of the Global Malnutrition Composite Score quality measure.

Malnutrition in hospitalized patients can impact health outcomes, quality of life, and health equity. Quality improvement initiatives and quality measurement can help improve the care of those hospitalized patients with malnutrition. The new Global Malnutrition Composite Score (GMCS) was recently adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as a health equity-focused measure. Beginning in 2024, the GMCS is available for reporting through the CMS Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. The GMCS provides an opportunity to elevate the importance of patient nutrition status and evidence-based interventions throughout the interdisciplinary hospital decision-making process. To promote this opportunity, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) held an "Interprofessional implementation of the Global Malnutrition Composite Score" webinar as part of its 2022 Malnutrition Awareness Week programming. This article summarizes the underlying rationale and significance of the GMCS measure and showcases clinical observations about integrating quality improvement and measurement into the acute care setting, as presented during the webinar.

Current nutrition assessment practice: A 2022 survey.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition remains a significant problem in patients with acute or chronic illnesses. Nutrition assessment is an important component in detecting malnutrition; but not always performed using a standardized tool. This survey on nutrition assessment evaluates current clinical practices on the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of malnutrition. METHODS: This 2022 survey of US-based nutrition clinicians collected data on assessment parameters used in hospitals, long-term care facilities, and the home care setting. RESULTS: A total of 686 surveys were available for analysis. Ninety-seven percent of adult and 91% of pediatric responding clinicians indicated that a dietitian completed the assessment. Parameters used most frequently among adult clinician respondents included nutrient intake, current weight, and weight history, those used by pediatric clinician respondents included nutrient intake, weight-for-age z score, and weight-for-length/height z score. Eighty-nine percent of adult clinicians in all care settings and 85% of pediatric clinicians use the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Indicators of Malnutrition (AAIM). Respondents reported malnutrition rates of 32%-40% for adults and 4%-30% for pediatric patients, depending on the setting. Appropriate interventions for those with malnutrition (as perceived by the survey respondents) were ordered 70% of the time. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated significant use of the AAIM by both adult and pediatric clinicians across care settings. Reported malnutrition rates are consistent with others published in the literature. The authors suggest that quality improvement efforts should focus on the 30% of patients with malnutrition but without a reported appropriate nutrition intervention.

Update on use of enteral and parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of malnutrition in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition continues to be associated with outcomes in hospitalized patients. METHODS: An updated review of national data in patients with a coded diagnosis of malnutrition (CDM) and the use of nutrition support (enteral nutrition [EN] and parenteral nutrition [PN]) was conducted using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medicare Claims data. RESULTS: Results demonstrated a growing trend in CDM accompanied by continued low utilization of PN and EN. CONCLUSION: Underutilization of nutrition support may be due to product shortages, reluctance of clinicians to use these therapies, undercoding of nutrition support, strict adherence to published guidelines, and other factors.

Malnutrition diagnoses and associated outcomes in hospitalized patients: United States, 2018.

In the US, malnutrition is prevalent among hospitalized patients and is associated with higher morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs when compared with those without malnutrition. Over time, national data have indicated the rate of coded malnutrition diagnoses among hospital discharges rising over time, and more current data on demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients are needed. Data on malnutrition discharges from the 2018 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)-the most recent nationally representative data-were examined and compared with earlier HCUP findings. Based on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes, 8.9% of all US non-maternal, non-neonatal hospital discharges in 2018 had a coded diagnosis of malnutrition (CDM). From this 2018 data, those with a CDM were older, had longer lengths of stay, and incurred higher costs, as compared with those without a CDM. Higher readmission rates and higher inpatient mortality were also observed in this group. These findings provide more recent demographic and clinical evidence for standardized malnutrition diagnostic and interventional programs to treat and/or prevent this condition.

Enteral and Parenteral Order Writing Survey-A Collaborative Evaluation Between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Dietitians in Nutrition Support Dietetics Practice Group and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Dietetics Practice Section.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and, if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges. RESULTS: Seven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n=558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; and 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; and 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting. CONCLUSION: PN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This article has been approved by the Academy's Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in Nutrition in Clinical Practice. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Enteral and Parenteral Order Writing Survey-A Collaborative Evaluation Between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Dietitians in Nutrition Support Dietetics Practice Group and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Dietetics Practice Section.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges. RESULTS: Seven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n = 558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting. CONCLUSION: PN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This paper has been approved by the Academy's Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Hospital Nutrition Assessment Practice 2016 Survey.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a significant problem for hospitalized patients in the United States. Nutrition assessment is an important step in recognizing malnutrition; however, it is not always performed using consistent parameters. METHODS: A survey among U.S. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members was conducted to collect data on nutrition assessment parameters used in hospitals and to establish how facilities use their electronic health record (EHR) to permit data retrieval and outcome reporting. RESULTS: The survey was developed by the ASPEN Malnutrition Committee and was sent to 5487 U.S. ASPEN members, with 489 responding for a 9% response rate. Ninety-eight percent of adult and 93% of pediatric respondents indicated a registered dietitian completed the nutrition assessment following a positive nutrition screen. Variables most frequently used among adult respondents included usual body weight, ideal body weight, and body mass index. Among pediatric respondents, weight-for-age and height-for-age percentiles and length/height-for-age percentile were most frequently used. Both adult and pediatric respondents indicated use of physical assessment parameters, including muscle and fat loss and skin assessment. Eighty-seven percent of adult and 77% of pediatric respondents indicated they are using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy) and ASPEN Consensus Malnutrition Characteristics for Adult and Pediatric Malnutrition, respectively. Overall, 97% of respondents indicated nutrition assessment documentation was completed via an EHR. Of all respondents, 61% indicated lack of clinical decision support within their EHR. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated significant use of the Academy/ASPEN malnutrition consensus characteristics.

Nutrition Screening and Assessment in Hospitalized Patients: A Survey of Current Practice in the United States.

Background: The Joint Commission has mandated universal screening and assessment of hospitalized patients for malnutrition since 1995. Although various validated and nonvalidated tools are available, implementation of this mandate has not been well characterized. We report results of a survey of hospital-based professionals in the United States describing their perspective on the current range of nutrition screening and assessment practices as well as associated gaps in knowledge. Methods and Materials: Data from a 2012-2013 cross-sectional, web-based survey targeting members of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.), the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, and the Society of Hospital Medicine were collected with non-hospital-based members excluded. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results: Survey data from 1777 unique email addresses are included in this report. A majority of respondents were dietitians, nearly half were A.S.P.E.N. members, and 69.4% reported caring for a mix of adult and pediatric patients. Most respondents answered affirmatively about nutrition screening being performed in alignment with The Joint Commission mandate, but only 50% were familiar with the 2012 Consensus Statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/A.S.P.E.N. on adult malnutrition. In most cases, nurses were primarily responsible for nutrition screening, while dietitians had primary responsibility for assessment. No one specific assessment tool or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code was identified as being used a majority of the time in assessing or coding a patient for malnutrition. Conclusions: The survey findings affirmed compliance with accreditation standards in completing a nutrition screen within 24 hours of admission, and most hospitals appear to have a process to perform a nutrition assessment once a screen is completed. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in both use of tools and mechanisms for coding capture. Opportunities exist to improve education around nutrition screening and assessment and to identify ideal practices for these processes in hospitalized patients.

Malnutrition diagnoses in hospitalized patients: United States, 2010.

Malnutrition is common among hospitalized patients in the United States, and its coded prevalence is increasing. Malnutrition is known to be associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Although national data indicate that the number of malnutrition diagnoses among hospital discharges has been steadily rising, an in-depth examination of the demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients has not been conducted. We examined data from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), the most recent nationally-representative data describing U.S. hospital discharges. Using ICD-9 codes, we constructed a composite variable indicating a diagnosis of malnutrition. Based on our definition, 3.2% of all U.S. hospital discharges in 2010 had this diagnosis. Relative to patients without a malnutrition diagnosis, those with the diagnosis were older, had longer lengths of stay and incurred higher costs. These patients were more likely to have 27 of 29 comorbidities assessed in HCUP. Finally, discharge to home care was twice as common among malnourished patients, and a discharge of death was more than 5 times as common among patients with a malnutrition diagnosis. Taken together, these nationally representative, cross-sectional data indicate that hospitalized patients discharged with a diagnosis of malnutrition are older and sicker and their inpatient care is more expensive than their counterparts without this diagnosis.

Critical role of nutrition in improving quality of care: an interdisciplinary call to action to address adult hospital malnutrition.

The current era of health care delivery, with its focus on providing high-quality, affordable care, presents many challenges to hospital-based health professionals. The prevention and treatment of hospital malnutrition offers a tremendous opportunity to optimize the overall quality of patient care, improve clinical outcomes, and reduce costs. Unfortunately, malnutrition continues to go unrecognized and untreated in many hospitalized patients. This article represents a call to action from the interdisciplinary Alliance to Advance Patient Nutrition to highlight the critical role of nutrition intervention in clinical care and suggest practical ways for prompt diagosis and treatment of malnourished patients and those at risk for malnutrition. We underscore the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to addressing malnutrition both in the hospital and in the acute post-hospital phase. It is well recognized that malnutrition is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Although data vary across studies, available evidence shows early nutrition intervention can reduce complication rates, length of hospital stay, re-admission rates, mortality, and cost of care. The key is to identify patients systematically who are malnourished or at risk and to promptly intervene. We present a novel care model to drive improvement, emphasizing the following six principles: (1) create an institutional culture where all stakeholders value nutrition; (2) redefine clinicians' roles to include nutrition care; (3) recognize and diagnose all malnourished patients and those at risk; (4) rapidly implement comprehensive nutrition interventions and continued monitoring; (5) communicate nutrition care plans; and (6) develop a comprehensive discharge nutrition care and education plan.

Critical role of nutrition in improving quality of care: an interdisciplinary call to action to address adult hospital malnutrition.

The current era of healthcare delivery, with its focus on providing high-quality, affordable care, presents many challenges to hospital-based health professionals. The prevention and treatment of hospital malnutrition offer a tremendous opportunity to optimize the overall quality of patient care, improve clinical outcomes, and reduce costs. Unfortunately, malnutrition continues to go unrecognized and untreated in many hospitalized patients. This article represents a call to action from the interdisciplinary Alliance to Advance Patient Nutrition to highlight the critical role of nutrition intervention in clinical care and to suggest practical ways to promptly diagnose and treat malnourished patients and those at risk for malnutrition. We underscore the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to addressing malnutrition both in the hospital and in the acute posthospital phase. It is well recognized that malnutrition is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Although data vary across studies, available evidence shows that early nutrition intervention can reduce complication rates, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, mortality, and cost of care. The key is to systematically identify patients who are malnourished or at risk and to promptly intervene. We present a novel care model to drive improvement, emphasizing the following 6 principles: (1) create an institutional culture where all stakeholders value nutrition, (2) redefine clinicians' roles to include nutrition care, (3) recognize and diagnose all malnourished patients and those at risk, (4) rapidly implement comprehensive nutrition interventions and continued monitoring, (5) communicate nutrition care plans, and (6) develop a comprehensive discharge nutrition care and education plan.

Methods of assessing energy expenditure in the intensive care unit.

An essential component in developing the nutrition support plan for hospitalized patients is evaluating energy requirements. Assessing energy expenditure (EE) and identifying requirements in the critically ill patient present the clinician with a challenge; how to prevent overfeeding and minimize underfeeding? Both under- and overfeeding have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. It is known that critical illness alters EE. This alteration is hormonally mediated and is characterized by changes in metabolic processes. Methods used by clinicians to assess EE in the critically ill patient vary significantly. It is the purpose of this review to outline the various methods for evaluating EE in critical illness with emphasis on their benefits and limitations.