IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i5-6p760-768.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nutritional screening of patients at a memory clinic – association between patients’ and their relatives’ self‐reports

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Liv Lyngroth
  • Susanne Miriam Sørensen Hernes
  • Bengt‐Ove Madsen
  • Ulrika Söderhamn
  • Ellen Karine Grov

Abstract

Aims and objectives To compare individual reports by patients and relatives (proxy) of the Nutritional Form For the Elderly and relate the Nutritional Form For the Elderly scores to Mini Mental Status Examination scores, weight loss, Body Mass Index, five‐point Clock Drawing Test and background variables. Background Undernutrition or risk of undernutrition is a significant problem among people with dementia. A poor nutritional state increases the risk of infections, delayed convalescence after acute illness and reduced quality of life. Design A cross‐sectional study. Method Application of the Nutritional Form For the Elderly in addition to clinical nutrition parameters and cognitive tests in a memory clinic among 213 persons referred for assessment due to possible cognitive impairment or dementia. Results Patients’ and proxy Nutritional Form For the Elderly scores yielded comparative results. Nutritional Form For the Elderly scores ≥6 (medium to high risk of undernutrition) were found in 32% of the patients vs. 43% of proxy. Mean Mini Mental Status Examination score was 23·2 (SD 4·5) and 50% failed the Clock Drawing Test. Involuntary weight loss was reported by 42% of the patients, and in 26% of the patients, Body Mass Index values were below 22 kg/m2, indicating undernutrition. By regression analysis, Clock Drawing Test (p = 0·019) and Mini Mental Status Examination (p = 0·04) might predict the risk of reduced nutritional status. Conclusion The study demonstrates that a significant proportion of patients at our memory clinic were at nutritional risk. Corresponding results exist between patients’ and proxy Nutritional Form For the Elderly scores; however, the patients assessed themselves more well‐nourished as compared to proxy assessment. The discrepancies seem to increase with more severe cognitive impairment. Females and single‐dwelling individuals were at higher risk of undernutrition compared to males and cohabitants. Relevance to clinical practice Self‐reporting and proxy‐rating seem both applicable for nutritional screening among moderate cognitive impaired. Cognitive decline seems to affect the accuracy when patients rate themselves. A reduced Mini Mental Status Examination and/or failed Clock Drawing Test might predict the risk of undernutrition.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Liv Lyngroth & Susanne Miriam Sørensen Hernes & Bengt‐Ove Madsen & Ulrika Söderhamn & Ellen Karine Grov, 2016. "Nutritional screening of patients at a memory clinic – association between patients’ and their relatives’ self‐reports," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5-6), pages 760-768, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:5-6:p:760-768
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13093
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:5-6:p:760-768. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.