Patterns of use of malnutrition risk screening in pediatric populations: A survey of current practice among pediatric hospitals in North America.

Information on the use of validated malnutrition risk screening tools in pediatric facilities to guide malnutrition identification, diagnosis, and treatment is scarce. Therefore, a survey of pediatric healthcare facilities and practitioners to ascertain malnutrition risk screening practices in North America was conducted. A pediatric nutrition screening practices survey was developed and sent to members of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, the Council for Pediatric Nutrition Professionals and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Pediatric Nutrition Practice Group. Respondents represented 113 pediatric hospitals in the United States and six in Canada, of which 94 were inpatient and 59 were outpatient. Nutrition risk screening was completed in 90% inpatient settings, and 63% used a validated screening tool. Nurses performed most malnutrition risk screens in the inpatient setting. Nutrition risk screening was reported in 51% of outpatient settings, with a validated screening tool being used in 53%. Measured anthropometrics were used in 78% of inpatient settings, whereas 45% used verbally reported anthropometrics. Measured anthropometrics were used in 97% outpatient settings. Nutrition risk screening was completed in the electronic health record in 80% inpatient settings and 81% outpatient settings. Electronic health record positive screen generated an automatic referral in 80% of inpatient and 45% of outpatient settings. In this sample of pediatric healthcare organizations, the results demonstrate variation in pediatric malnutrition risk screening in North America. These inconsistencies justify the need to standardize pediatric malnutrition risk screening using validated pediatric tools and allocate resources to perform screening.

Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) for the diagnosis of malnutrition - a framework for consistent dietetic practice.

Malnutrition is an alarming and ongoing healthcare problem globally. Malnutrition has a negative impact on the individual patient, leading to poorer clinical outcomes and increased mortality, but also poses an economic burden on society. Proper identification and diagnostics are prerequisites for initiation of treatment. In 2019, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition, a consensus-based global framework to uniformly diagnose malnutrition across populations, healthcare settings, and countries was published. Identifying and treating malnutrition is an interdisciplinary team effort. Nonetheless, the nutrition and dietetics profession is specifically trained for diagnosing and treating nutrition(-related) conditions, and therefore has a key role in the interdisciplinary team in implementing the GLIM framework in clinical practice. For the nutrition and dietetics profession, GLIM offers a great opportunity for moving both the scientific and clinical knowledge of malnutrition management forward. While the GLIM framework has been extensively studied since its launch, various knowledge gaps still remain. For the nutrition and dietetics profession, these knowledge gaps mainly relate to the GLIM implementation process, to the role of GLIM in relation to the nutrition care process, and to treatment strategies for various nutrition-related conditions. In this opinion paper, we aimed to describe the rationale for implementing the GLIM framework in clinical dietetic practice, and propose a research agenda based on knowledge gaps regarding GLIM in relation to nutrition care from a dietetic point of view.

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.

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.

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.

Blenderized tube feedings: Practice recommendations from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

Prior to the 1970s, blending food and liquids and putting them through an enteral access device (EAD) was the most common form of enteral nutrition (EN). However, in the 1970s, blenderized tube feedings (BTFs) became less popular due to the emergence of modern commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Recently, a cultural shift toward consuming a natural diet, consisting of whole foods, has led to a resurgence in the use of BTF. The increasing use of BTF in a variety of patient care settings identifies a need for practice recommendations that provide guidance for nutrition professionals and patients. Members of the American Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Enteral Nutrition Committee identified salient clinical questions concerning BTF, conducted a comprehensive literature search, and subsequently developed practice recommendations pertaining to the use of BTF. This paper was approved by the ASPEN 2022-2023 Board of Directors.

Key approaches to diagnosing malnutrition in adults.

Nutrition assessment is used to describe nutrition status-related nutrition problems and their causes, one of which includes malnutrition. Four malnutrition diagnostic tools are currently in use today in adults: Subjective Global Assessment, the Mini Nutritional Assessment, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition malnutrition consensus characteristics, and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The aim of this article is to provide sufficient background of these methodologies to assist clinicians in choosing their approach in diagnosing malnutrition. There is substantial overlap between the criteria included in these malnutrition diagnostic approaches. A desired goal is to identify a core data set in order to evaluate malnutrition prevalence globally and to assess the impact of nutrition interventions on nutrition and clinical outcomes.

Utilization and validation of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM): A scoping review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The diagnosis of malnutrition remains a significant challenge despite various published diagnostic criteria. In 2018, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) published a set of evidence-based criteria as a framework for malnutrition diagnosis in adults. A scoping review was conducted to understand how the GLIM criteria have been used in published literature and compare the reported validation methods to published validation guidance. METHODS: Dialog and Dimensions databases were searched by publication date (January 1, 2019, through January 29, 2021). Data were extracted and mapped to the research objectives. RESULTS: Seventy-nine studies were reviewed; 32% were in patients at least 65 years of age; 67% occurred in hospitals. The majority were cohort studies (61%). Fifty-seven percent employed all 5 GLIM criteria. Regarding phenotypic criteria, 92% used low BMI, and 45% applied anthropometry as a marker for muscle mass, of which 54% used calf circumference. Regarding etiologic criteria, 72% used reduced food intake/assimilation, and 85% applied inflammation/disease burden. Validation of GLIM criteria was described in 77% of publications. CONCLUSIONS: The GLIM criteria have been studied extensively since their publication. Low BMI was the phenotypic criterion used most often, whereas both reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden were frequently employed as the etiologic criteria. However, how the criteria were combined and how validation was conducted were not clear in most studies. Adequately powered, methodologically sound validation studies using the complete GLIM criteria are needed in various patient populations and disease settings to assess validity for the diagnosis of malnutrition.

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.

When is enteral nutrition indicated?

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a vital component of nutrition around the world. EN allows for delivery of nutrients to those who cannot maintain adequate nutrition by oral intake alone. Common questions regarding EN are when to initiate and in what scenarios it is safe. The answers to these questions are often complex and require an evidence-based approach. The Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) established an Enteral Nutrition Committtee to address the important questions surrounding the indications for EN. Consensus recommendations were established based on eight extremely clinically relevant questions regarding EN indications as deemed by the Enteral Nutrition Committee. These consensus recommendations may act as a guide for clinicians and stakeholders on difficult questions pertaining to indications for EN. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.

The Use of Visceral Proteins as Nutrition Markers: An ASPEN Position Paper.

Serum albumin and prealbumin, well-known visceral proteins, have traditionally been considered useful biochemical laboratory values in a nutrition assessment. However, recent literature disputes this contention. The aim of this document is to clarify that these proteins characterize inflammation rather than describe nutrition status or protein-energy malnutrition. Both critical illness and chronic illness are characterized by inflammation and, as such, hepatic reprioritization of protein synthesis occurs, resulting in lower serum concentrations of albumin and prealbumin. In addition, the redistribution of serum proteins occurs because of an increase in capillary permeability. There is an association between inflammation and malnutrition, however, not between malnutrition and visceral-protein levels. These proteins correlate well with patients' risk for adverse outcomes rather than with protein-energy malnutrition. Therefore, serum albumin and prealbumin should not serve as proxy measures of total body protein or total muscle mass and should not be used as nutrition markers. This paper has been approved by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Board of Directors.

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; 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.

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.

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Consensus Malnutrition Characteristics: Usability and Association With Outcomes.

Malnutrition has been documented in approximately one-third of patients in developed countries on hospital admission and is associated with negative clinical outcomes. The need to identify and intervene in at-risk patients is critical to minimize these negative outcomes. A consensus approach for diagnosing and documenting malnutrition in hospitalized adult and pediatric patients was published jointly by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy) and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The purpose of this paper is to review the available literature on the usability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of both the adult and pediatric consensus malnutrition diagnostic approaches, as well as to evaluate their use in studying clinical outcomes. In adults, abstracts and published studies have shown the diagnostic tool is a usable, feasible, and reliable method for the identification of severe and non-severe or moderate malnutrition. In pediatrics, only 1 published study to date used the pediatric malnutrition indicators, indicating the need to demonstrate that the tool is feasible, valid, and reliable. Both the adult and pediatric tools have shown significant correlation with negative clinical outcomes in malnourished patients, including increased mortality, increased hospital length of stay (adults), increased complications (pediatrics), and increased hospital readmissions. Further large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility, usability, validity, and reliability of both the adult and pediatric malnutrition diagnostic approaches.

Prevalence of Malnutrition Risk and the Impact of Nutrition Risk on Hospital Outcomes: Results From nutritionDay in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition risk estimates vary greatly, and no robust data on the association between food intake and outcomes exist for hospitals in the United States (U.S.). This study aimed to determine the prevalence of malnutrition risk and to evaluate the impact of food intake on mortality using the nutritionDay in the U.S. dataset. METHODS: This study analyzed data from 2009 to 2015 for all adult patients from participating hospitals. Prevalence of malnutrition risk was determined by mapping self-reported nutritionDay survey questions to the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST). Fine and Gray competing-risk analysis with clustering was used to evaluate the impact of nutrition risk and food intake on patients' 30-day in-hospital mortality, while controlling for age, mobility, and other disease-related factors. RESULTS: Analysis included data from 9959 adult patients from 601 wards. The overall prevalence of malnutrition risk (MST score ≥2) was 32.7%. On nutritionDay, 32.1% of patients ate a quarter of their meal or less. Hospital mortality hazard ratio was 3.24 (95% CI: [1.73, 6.07]; P-value < 0.001) for patients eating a quarter compared with those who ate all their meal and increased to 5.99 (95% CI: [3.03, 11.84]; P-value < 0.0001) for patients eating nothing despite being allowed to eat. CONCLUSION: This study provides the most robust estimate of malnutrition risk in U.S. hospitalized patients to date, finding that approximately 1 in 3 are at risk. Additionally, patients who have diminished meal intake experience increased mortality risk. These results highlight the ongoing issue of malnutrition in the hospital setting.