Search

Objective This study investigated how specific nutrition interventions were implemented at four US hospitals, compared rates of malnutrition diagnosis and assessment between physicians and registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs), and examined how these differences affected the nutrition intervention received during patients’ hospital stay. Methods Data on patients’ nutrition status and nutrition interventions were collected from 16 669 hospital inpatient records. Data on intervention utilization for patients with differing nutrition assessments and diagnoses from different health care practitioners were compared using descriptive statistics and χ2 tests. Results The study found high levels of agreement between physician diagnosis and RDN assessment of malnutrition (88%). Much of this agreement related to patients identified as not malnourished. Of patients identified as malnourished by either physician diagnosis or RDN assessment, agreement was reached in 55.5% of patients. Less than half (46.3%) of patients identified as malnourished had a documented nutrition intervention. Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) were the most commonly used intervention, with 5.1% of patients receiving them. Patients identified as malnourished by physician diagnosis, but not by RDN assessment, were more likely to receive enteral and parenteral nutrition. Patients identified as malnourished by RDN assessment, but not by physician diagnosis, were more likely to have received ONS, meals and snacks, counseling, and food/nutrition-related medication management. Conclusion The high level of agreement on assessment and malnutrition diagnosis suggests positive levels of malnutrition care coordination at the study hospitals. However, significant room for improvement exists in providing interventions to inpatients diagnosed with malnourishment. Differences in interventions may reflect dissimilar approaches commonly used by different practitioners and should be a topic of future study.

Background: Although guidelines suggest that the best strategy for evaluating syncope is clinical history and physical examination, the inappropriate utilization of diagnostic imaging is common. Methods: A single center retrospective analysis conducted in adult patients admitted for evaluation and management of syncope for a period of 12 months. Charts were reviewed to abstract demographic data, admitting and discharge diagnosis, diagnostic investigatory tests including imaging modalities (echocardiogram, carotid ultrasound, and cranial computed tomography (CT)) ordered, subspecialty consultation requested, treatment rendered and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: A total of 109 patients were admitted for syncope, mean age was 68.74 ± 21.04 years and 39.44% were men. Echocardiogram, carotid ultrasound, and cranial CT were ordered in 69.72%, 33.02%, and 76.14% respectively. The mean hospital LOS was 2.6 days. Patients with no imaging test, one imaging test, two imaging tests, and three imaging tests ordered have an average hospital LOS of 2.22 days, 2.44 days, 2.58 days, and 3.07 days respectively. The number of imaging test and its relation to the admitting (Chi-square (chi-sq) P = 0.4165, nominal logistic regression (LR) P = 0.939) and discharge (chi-sq P = 0.1507, nominal LR P = 0.782) diagnosis as well as the LOS in relation to the number of imaging test ordered (analysis of variance (ANOVA) P = 0.368, Kruskal Wallis (KW) P = 0.352) were not statistically significant although there was a trend of prolonged hospital LOS the more imaging diagnostic test had been ordered. Syncope was the admitting and discharge diagnosis in 89.9% and 91.74% respectively. Conclusions: Choosing the appropriate diagnostic tests as dictated by the patient's clinical manifestation and utilizing less expensive test would be appropriate and cost-effective approach in appraising patients with syncope. Cardiol Res. 2018;9(4):197-203 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr751w

Thrombi of the soleal and gastrocnemius veins of the leg remain incompletely characterized in terms of the appropriate treatment algorithm to follow. Although they are anatomically located below the level of the fascia, making them "deep" vein thrombi, their natural history is unclear with respect to propagation and embolization. Varying treatment suggestions have been proposed, from full-dose anticoagulation to "watchful waiting" with repeated duplex examination, with none rising to the level of accepted scientific evidence. Herein, we present the current literature citing the differing opinions and data that have confused the subject.