Do acute hospitalised patients in Australia have a different body mass index to the general Australian population: a point prevalence study?

Objective The aim of the present study was to provide a current snapshot of the body mass index (BMI) of the entire patient cohort of an Australian tertiary hospital on one day and compare these data with current published Australian and state (Western Australia) population norms. Methods A single-centre prospective point prevalence study was performed whereby BMI was calculated following actual measurement of patient weight (nurse) and height (physiotherapist) on one day during 2015. Variables were summarised descriptively, and one-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the relationship between continuous BMI and hospital speciality. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyse the time to leaving hospital, where those who died were censored at their date of death. Results Data were collected from 416 patients (96% of the hospital population on that day). The mean (± s.e.m.) BMI across the whole hospital population was 26.6±2.2kgm-2, with 37% of patients having normal BMI, 8% being underweight, 32% being overweight, 19% being obese and 4% being severely obese. Comparison with both national and state population norms for 2014-15 reflected higher proportions of the hospital population in the underweight and extremely obese categories, and lower proportions in the overweight and obese categories. There was no significant difference in BMI across medical specialties. Conclusions Despite health warnings about the direct relationship between illness and being overweight or obese, the results of the present study reveal fewer hospitalised patients in these BMI categories and more underweight patients than in the non-hospitalised general Australian population. Being overweight or obese may offer some protection against hospitalisation, but there is a point where the deleterious effect of obesity results in more extremely obese individuals being hospitalised than the proportion represented in the general population. What is known about the topic? Although there is significant current published data relating to general Australian population BMI, there is little pertaining specifically to the hospitalised population. Accordingly, although we know that as an affluent Western country we are seeing growing rates of overweight and obese people and relatively few underweight or undernourished people in the general population, we do not know whether these trends are mirrored or magnified in those who are sick in hospital. We also know that although caring for obese patients carries a significant burden, there is the suggestion in some healthcare literature of an 'obesity paradox', whereby in certain disease states being overweight actually decreases mortality and promotes a faster recovery from illness compared with underweight people, who have poorer outcomes. What does this paper add? This paper is the first of its kind to actually measure and calculate the BMI of a whole tertiary Australian hospital population and provide some comparison with published Australian norms. On average, the hospital cohort was overweight, with a mean (± s.e.m.) BMI of 26.6±2.2kgm-2, but less so than the general population, which had a mean BMI of 27.5±0.2kgm-2. The results also indicate that compared with state and national norms, underweight and extremely obese patients were over-represented in the hospitalised cohort, whereas overweight or obese patients were under-represented. What are the implications for practitioners? Although only a single-centre study, the case-mix and socioeconomic catchment area of the hospital evaluated in the present study suggest that it is a typical tertiary urban West Australian facility and, as such, there may be some implications for practitioners. Primarily, administrators need to ensure that we are able to accommodate people of increasing weight in our hospital facilities and have the resources with which to do so, because, on average, hospitalised patients were overweight. In addition, resources need to be available for managing the extremely obese if numbers in this subset of the population increase. Finally, practitioners may also need to consider that although the management of underweight and undernourished patients may be less of a physical burden, there are actually more of these patients in hospital compared with the general population, and they may require a different package of resource utilisation.

The prevalence of back pain in patients in one Australian tertiary hospital population.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to provide back pain (BP) point prevalence data from inpatients at an Australian tertiary hospital on one day, and compare this with Australian non-hospitalized population prevalence data; to collect data around the development of BP throughout hospital admission; and to analyse the association between BP and past history of BP, gender, age, admission specialty and hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS: This was a single-site, prospective, observational study of hospitalized inpatients on one day during 2016, with a subsequent survey over the following 11 days (unless discharge or death occurred sooner). RESULTS: Data were collected from 343 patients (75% of the hospitalized cohort). A third of patients (n = 108) reported BP on admission, and almost a fifth (n = 63) developed new BP during their hospitalization. Patients who described BP at any time during their hospital stay had a higher chance of having had a history of BP, with odds increasing after adjustment for age and gender (odds ratio 5.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 11.6; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and gender, those experiencing BP had a significantly longer LOS (median 13 days; CI 10.8 to 15.3) than those who did not (median 10 days; CI 8.4 to 11.6; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital LOS for patients who complained of BP at any time during their admission was 3 days longer than those who had no BP, and a history of BP predicted a higher likelihood of BP during admission. Screening of patients on admission to identify any history of BP, and application of a package of care including early mobilization and analgesia may prevent the onset of BP and reduce LOS.

Classification of proximal endovenous closure levels and treatment algorithm.

OBJECTIVES: Endovenous closure is a common method to treat saphenous vein incompetence. Despite attempts to prevent it, some patients have extension of thrombus above the ideal site of closure immediately below the epigastric vein. We have developed a classification system for the level of saphenous vein closure to guide further therapy after endovenous treatment. METHODS: A six-tier classification system was developed, based on thrombus proximity to the epigastric or femoral vein, and an algorithm for treatment, based on level of closure was applied to all patients. RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients underwent radio-frequency ablation of the saphenous vein; it was successfully closed in 498 (99.6%) patients. Thirteen patients (2.6%) experienced thrombus bulging into the femoral vein or adherent to its wall, which was treated with anticoagulation. All of these patients had thrombus retraction to the level of the saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) in an average of 16 days with concurrent anticoagulation. No femoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) occurred in the series. There was a significantly higher rate of proximal thrombus extension in those patients with a history of DVT and those with a great saphenous vein (GSV) diameter of >8 mm (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: A classification system for saphenous endovenous closure which extends above the epigastric vein has been helpful in guiding management. A GSV diameter at the SFJ of >8 mm and a history of DVT results in significantly higher rates of proximal thrombus extension into the femoral vein. A short course of LMWH, until clot retracts back into the saphenous vein, is therapeutic. Management of the patients with thrombus flush with the femoral vein wall still needs to be defined, but the outcome from these patients is generally benign.