296

Part II Nutrition Assessment, Consequences, and Implications

TABLE 20.1 cont. Nutrition Intervention Studies and Hospital Readmission Reference

Kurien et al, 2012 (49)

Population Prospective Cohort Studies

Hospital patients receiving

enteral feeding via

percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)

Chima et al, 1997 (59)

All medicine service patients admitted

directly to any of the three inpatient

medicine units in tertiary-care teaching

hospital over 1-month period

Brugler et al, 1999 (60)

Adult hospital patients

US 635

Intervention: malnutrition pathway

Control: standard of care

During hospital stay

Retrospective Studies

Gregersen et al, 2010 (47)

Nursing home patients

admitted to hospital for hip fracture surgery

Johnson et al, 1993 (48)

Patients age 65+ (mean age 86) in LTC nursing homes

US 109 Denmark 211 Geriatric

intervention, including nutrition

intervention vs standard of care; duration varied

Patients who used ONS

2 × day (n = 56) vs random sample control group of non- ONS patients (n = 53); 6 months

No statistically significant difference in hospitalization between two groups

Geriatric intervention, including nutrition intervention reduced nonelective hospital readmissions (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04, 0.91)

Decrease in percentage of patients readmitted within 30 days, from 16.5% to 7.1%

(P < .001) US 173

At-risk patients received nutrition intervention while

hospitalized.

Readmission rate per month of follow-up was not significantly different between at-risk and not-at- risk populations (median number per month follow-up, .04 vs 0)

UK 313

Intervention from a dietetic home enteral feed (HEF) team

Intervention from the HEF team significantly reduced gastrostomy- related hospital readmission, from 23% to 2% (P = .0001).

Location

Sample Size

Intervention/ Duration

Readmission Rates