Abstract
Background
The global rise in the elderly population has amplified the urgency to address age-related nutritional risks, as malnutrition among older hospitalized patients contributes to poor clinical outcomes and shows the need for targeted nutritional interventions. This study aimed to assess the clinical nutrition management of elderly hospitalized patients.
Material/Methods
A total of 227 hospitalized patients who received nutrition consultations in the Department of Geriatrics at Peking University People’s Hospital from May 2017 to September 2020 were included in this study. We conducted a retrospective review of their medical records, collecting basic clinical information, nutritional status, consultation times and recommendations, compliance with clinical advice, and changes in blood biochemical indicators.
Results
Among 227 patients, 160 (68.75% male and 73.49% female) were at nutritional risk. Those with type 2 diabetes, pulmonary infections, gastrointestinal diseases, chronic kidney disease, and anemia had a higher incidence of nutritional risk (* P<0.05). Of these, 204 adhered to the nutritionists’ intervention plan, with the highest implementation rate for health education (98.73%) and the lowest for oral nutritional supplements (ONS) at 83.87%. Noncompliance included 69% failing to take oral supplements and 22% refusing tube feeding. Patients following nutritional advice had significantly shorter hospital stays (P=0.03, P=0.00). After the intervention, total protein and albumin improved, with low-risk patients showing higher levels in total enteral nutrition (* P<0.05). No significant differences were found in high-risk patients (P>0.05).
Conclusions
Effective clinical nutrition management for elderly patients requires enhanced dietary supply practices, standardized consultation implementation, and the active involvement of patients’ families in nutritional planning, ultimately improving overall healthcare outcomes.
Keywords: Nutrition Assessment, Malnutrition, Geriatrics
Introduction
The aging process encompasses numerous physical, social, and physiological changes that unfold over a person’s lifetime [1]. Globally, the percentage of elderly individuals has been steadily increasing and is expected to continue rising in the coming years. Projections suggest a significant surge in the elderly population, with estimates indicating that by 2050, the global population of older adults (aged ≥60 years) will double from 841 million in 2013 to 2 billion, accounting for roughly 21% of the world’s population [2,3]. Nutrition requires special attention as individuals age. While energy requirements typically decrease with advancing years, the need for protein and specific nutrients actually increases to support the body’s normal functions [4]. Recent evidence underscores the complex interaction between nutrition, lifestyle, and aging. A cross-sectional study comparing Malaysian and Indonesian nurses revealed a high prevalence of obesity, coupled with low physical activity levels and weak correlations between body mass index and health-promoting behaviors. These findings highlight how lifestyle and nutritional imbalances contribute to health risks even among working-age adults, reinforcing the importance of early preventive measures to maintain metabolic and physiological health in later life [5].
Heightened nutritional deficiencies significantly increase the risk of specific chronic diseases and age-related health decline. Nutritional risk refers to the likelihood of adverse clinical outcomes driven by suboptimal nutrient intake [6]. Elderly patients face heightened vulnerabilities due to physiological alterations, comorbidities, and psychosocial factors that impede adequate dietary intake [7]. Malnutrition, encompassing both undernutrition and overnutrition, remains a significant issue among older adults and is often overlooked [8]. It contributes to extended hospital stays, delayed rehabilitation, higher readmission rates, and increased mortality, underscoring an urgent need for public health and policy interventions [9].
Studies in China have revealed that the prevalence of nutritional risk among elderly hospitalized patients ranges from 40.15% to 59.93% [10]. A study involving 3122 patients in Australia and New Zealand found that 41% of participants were deemed “at risk” of malnutrition, underscoring the widespread occurrence of malnutrition and inadequate food intake among acute care patients in various hospital settings [11,12]. Furthermore, Loss et al demonstrated a correlation between malnutrition and worse outcomes, including increased infection rates, prolonged hospital stays, and increased mortality risks among elderly patients [13]. In addition to these findings, interventional studies have demonstrated that targeted nutritional and lifestyle modifications can improve physiological resilience in older adults. For example, a trial in postmenopausal women aged 50–65 years found that combining honey supplementation with regular walking exercise enhanced antioxidant enzyme activity, suggesting potential synergistic benefits of diet and moderate physical activity in mitigating oxidative stress during aging [14].
A prospective study examined the impact of dietary patterns and nutrition initiatives on the 28-day all-cause mortality rate in elderly patients, suggesting that the administration and management of nutrition emerged as an autonomous risk factor for 28-day survival, with enteral nutrition potentially enhancing this outcome. Critically ill patients in the ICU who received early parenteral nutrition, were of advanced age, exhibited rapid respiratory rates, and had elevated lactate levels were prone to poorer prognoses [15,16]. Consequently, the implementation of nutritional interventions stands as a critical approach to addressing prevailing nutritional deficiencies and fostering recovery from diseases in the elderly [17,18]. Early nutrition therapy for patients identified as being at nutritional risk plays a pivotal role in enhancing clinical outcomes, such as reducing complications and length of hospital stays [19]. With the evolving medical frameworks within hospitals and the heightened focus on clinical nutrition departments, nutrition consultation has emerged as a crucial initial step in treating hospitalized patients at nutritional risk [20,21]. As China’s population aged 60 and above reached 280.04 million individuals, constituting 19.8% of the total population in 2022, the looming threat of nutritional risk is poised to intensify [22]. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the nutritional status of elderly hospitalized patients and investigate tailored nutritional interventions to address their unique needs.
Material and Methods
Participants
A retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients in the Department of Geriatrics at Peking University People’s Hospital who received nutrition consultations from May 2017 to September 2020. Inclusion criteria were ages 60 to 90 years, and patients who died during hospitalization were excluded. The study was reviewed by the Ethics Committee and adhered to ethical principles, following the Declaration of Helsinki and the regulations for biomedical research involving human subjects in China (NO: 220PHB225-001).
Data Collection
This investigation utilized hospital medical records obtained from the statistical comprehensive management system. Collected data included patients’ basic information (age, sex, length of stay), nutritional status, details of nutrition consultations, compliance with clinical advice, and chronic diseases (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebral apoplexy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung infections, gastrointestinal disorders, gallbladder disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, anemia, dementia, anxiety, and depression). Changes in blood biochemical indices (total protein, albumin, blood calcium, blood potassium, blood sodium) were also recorded.
To ensure data accuracy and integrity, a rigorous data management process was implemented using Epi Data 3.1 software. Two trained researchers independently performed double entry of all extracted variables. The datasets were then cross-checked to identify discrepancies, which were resolved through consensus review. Logical verification procedures were applied to detect outliers, inconsistencies, and missing values. Any anomalies flagged during this process were reconciled against the original source records to maintain data reliability prior to statistical analysis.
Nutrition Interventions
Nutrition interventions were documented in the nutrition medical record system and included 3 main components. The first component was health education, which involved correcting patients’ improper dietary structures and habits, along with formulating personalized nutritional meal plans based on the hospital nutrition canteen’s timing and quantitative distribution. The second component was enteral nutrition, which encompassed oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and feeding via nasogastric or nasojejunal tubes. The third component was parenteral nutrition, where parenteral nutrient solutions were administered through central venous catheters or peripheral veins. Patients receiving a daily energy supply greater than 41.84 kJ (10 kcal)/(kg·d) for 3 consecutive days were classified as having received nutritional support (Table 1).
Table 1.
Summary of nutritional intervention schedule and methods.
| Intervention type | Components/description | Delivery method | Duration/frequency | Criteria for implementation | Energy supply/notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health Education | Personalized dietary guidance, correction of improper eating habits, and formulation of individualized meal plans based on hospital canteen distribution | Face-to-face counseling by dietitians | At initial consultation and follow-up as needed | All patients receiving nutrition consultation | Focus on balanced macronutrient intake and food timing |
| Enteral Nutrition (EN) | Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) or tube feeding (nasogastric/nasojejunal) based on patient tolerance and swallowing function | Oral or via feeding tube | ≥3 consecutive days | Patients unable to meet energy/protein needs through diet alone | Energy supply >41.84 kJ (10 kcal)/(kg·d) |
| Parenteral Nutrition (PN) | Parenteral nutrient solutions (amino acids, glucose, lipids, electrolytes, micronutrients) | Central venous catheter or peripheral vein | ≥3 consecutive days | Patients with contraindications to EN or inadequate enteral intake | Energy supply >41.84 kJ (10 kcal)/(kg·d) |
Nutrition Risk Screening
The Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale was utilized for this study, assessing 3 aspects [23]. These aspects included an impaired nutritional status score ranging from 0 to 3 points, a disease severity score ranging from 0 to 3 points, and a score of 1 point for age ≥70 years. A total score of ≥3 points indicated nutritional risk requiring support. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin levels ≤120 mg/L for men and ≤110 mg/L for women, in conjunction with clinical symptoms.
Statistical Analysis
The significance level for testing was set at a P value of 0.05. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 software. Continuous variables were described using mean (±SD) or median (interquartile range), while categorical variables were presented as counts and percentages. The Pearson chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were employed to compare the incidence of nutritional risk and the implementation rates of nutritional intervention programs. Nonparametric tests were utilized to assess the influence of hospital stay duration and to make intergroup comparisons of various biochemical indicators within the intervention modes. A paired sample t test was used to evaluate changes in biochemical indicators before and after nutritional intervention.
Results
Demographic and Nutritional Risk Profile of Patients
A total of 227 patients (144 males and 83 females) participated in this study. The mean age was 79.5±11.4 years, and the median duration of hospitalization was 19.00 days. The mean BMI for male patients was 23.45±5.24 kg/m2, while for females, it was 22.45±4.86 kg/m2, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P=0.16). Analysis of nutritional risk status and influencing factors revealed that 160 of the 227 patients (70.48%) were at nutritional risk. The incidence of nutritional risk was 68.75% in men and 73.49% in women, with no significant difference between the sexes (P=0.45). Patients of different ages exhibited significantly varying proportions of nutritional risk (P=0.00), with older patients showing a higher incidence. Notably, 87.06% of patients over 85 years old were identified as at nutritional risk (Table 2). Among the diseases diagnosed upon admission, hypertension (67.84%), type 2 diabetes (46.26%), and coronary heart disease (42.73%) were the most prevalent. Furthermore, elderly individuals with type 2 diabetes, pulmonary infections, gastrointestinal diseases, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and anemia had a higher incidence of nutritional risk compared to those without these conditions (P<0.05) (Table 3).
Table 2.
Nutritional risk status analysis for all patients.
| Project | NRS2002 (n) | Incidence of nutritional risk (%) | χ2 | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <3 points | ≥3 points | ||||
| Overall | 67 | 160 | 70.48 | ||
| Sex | 0.36 | 0.54 | |||
| Male | 45 | 99 | 68.75 | ||
| Female | 22 | 61 | 73.49 | ||
| Age | 30.36 | 0.00* | |||
| <70 years old | 23 | 14 | 37.84 | ||
| 70–84 years | 33 | 72 | 68.57 | ||
| ≥85 years | 11 | 74 | 87.06 | ||
| Length of stay | 18.98 | 0.00* | |||
| <14 days | 32 | 31 | 49.21 | ||
| ≥14 days | 35 | 129 | 78.66 | ||
P<0.05.
Table 3.
Incidence of nutritional risk among different chronic diseases.
| Disease | Number of cases (constituent ratio) | χ2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | 154 (67.84%) | 0.63 | 0.43 |
| Type 2 diabetes | 105 (46.26%) | 16.72 | 0.00* |
| Coronary heart disease | 97 (42.73%) | 0.49 | 0.49 |
| Cerebral apoplexy | 18 (7.93%) | 3.18 | 0.07 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 23 (10.13%) | 0.74 | 0.39 |
| Lung infection | 81 (35.68%) | 29.59 | 0.00* |
| Gastrointestinal disorders | 54 (23.79%) | 4.12 | 0.04* |
| Gallbladder disease | 54 (23.79%) | 0.50 | 0.48 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 76 (33.48%) | 3.93 | 0.04* |
| Liver disease | 23 (10.13%) | 0.15 | 0.70 |
| Anemia | 70 (30.84%) | 13.50 | 0.00* |
| Dementia | 11 (4.85%) | 0.26 | 0.61 |
| Anxiety and depression state | 31 (13.66%) | 0.00 | 0.95 |
| Other diseases | 38 (16.74%) | 2.70 | 0.10 |
There was a significant difference in the incidence of nutritional risk between groups of patients with and without corresponding diseases.
Proposed Scheme and Implementation of Nutrition Consultation
Following consultations with clinical nutritionists, a nutrition support scheme was proposed for 160 patients identified as at nutritional risk. This included 88 cases (55.00%) receiving ONS, 28 cases (17.50%) receiving tube-fed enteral nutrition, 7 cases (4.38%) receiving parenteral nutrition, and 19 cases receiving a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition. Additionally, 18 cases (11.25%) were not recommended for nutrition support. In contrast, among the 67 patients without nutritional risk, 5 patients (7.46%) were advised to use ONS, and 1 patient (1.49%) received tube feeding. Overall, 204 patients received the corresponding nutrition intervention plan; however, the implementation rates of different nutrition support plans varied (χ2=11.06, P=0.03). The highest implementation rate was for health education (98.73%), while the lowest was for ONS treatment alone (83.87%). This discrepancy likely reflects greater patient acceptance and understanding of educational measures versus perceived complexity, taste issues, or logistical barriers to ONS. The remaining 23 patients who did not implement the nutrition support plan were categorized as follows: 69% failed to take oral nutritional supplements, 22% had families who refused tube feeding, and 9% did not have their parenteral nutrition formula adjusted in time.
Influencing Factors of Hospital Stay
Patients with positive nutritional risk screening results had significantly longer hospital stays compared to those without nutritional risk (P=0.00). After nutrition consultation, the hospitalization duration for patients who adhered to the nutritionist’s advice was shorter than for those who did not follow the intervention plan, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.00). Among patients who received nutrition consultations, those who consulted within 1 week of admission had significantly shorter hospital stays compared to those who consulted after one week (P=0.00) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Hospitalization duration by nutrition consultation status.
| Project | Length of stay M (P25, P75) | Z | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrition doctor’s advice | −2.96 | 0.00 | |
| Carry out | 12.00 (18.50–30.00) | ||
| Not implemented | 15.00 (35.00–52.00) | −5.55 | |
| Consultation time after admission | 0.00 | ||
| ≤7 days | 15.00 (10.75–21.25) | ||
| >7 days | 27.00 (17.00–40.25) |
Comparison of the Efficacy of Nutritional Support
Patients with nutritional risk were categorized into 2 groups based on the NRS 2002 score to mitigate the influence of confounding factors such as age and underlying diseases [24]. This allowed for a comparison of changes in nutrition-related biochemical indicators between the total enteral nutrition intervention group and the EN+PN or total parenteral nutrition group. Results indicated that among all patients with low nutritional risk (NRS 3–4), all indicators, except for blood potassium before the intervention, were below the normal range, with no significant differences between groups (P>0.05). After the intervention, all indicators improved in both groups. However, total protein, albumin, and blood calcium levels in the total enteral nutrition group were significantly higher after the intervention (P<0.01), while increases in these indicators in the EN+PN or total parenteral group were minor and not statistically significant (P>0.05). Additionally, total protein and albumin levels in the total enteral nutrition group were significantly greater than those in the EN+PN or total parenteral intervention group (Table 5). For patients with high nutritional risk (NRS 5–7), all indicators, except for blood potassium before the intervention, were also below the normal range. Notably, the total enteral nutrition group had higher blood calcium levels and lower blood potassium levels compared to the EN+PN or total parenteral group (P<0.05). After the intervention, all indicators improved in both groups; however, only total protein, albumin, and blood calcium showed significant increases in the EN+PN or total parenteral group (P<0.05). Changes in each index before and after the intervention in the total parenteral group were statistically significant (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the increases of total protein, albumin, and blood calcium between the 2 groups, nor were there significant differences in any indicators after the intervention (P>0.05) (Table 6).
Table 5.
Changes in biochemical indicators for patients with low nutritional risk before and after intervention.
| Biochemical indicator | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n=10) | Group 2 (n=58) | Z | P | Group 1 (n=58) | Group 2 (n=58) | Z | P | |
| Total protein (g/L) | 57.07±10.10 | 61.01±7.50 | −1.11 | 0.27 | 59.97±8.17 | 65.96±7.86* | −2.17 | 0.03 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 30.93±4.95 | 31.39±3.94 | −0.45 | 0.65 | 31.42±3.93 | 34.74±4.27* | −2.05 | 0.04 |
| Blood calcium (mmol/L) | 2.05±0.20 | 2.11±0.15 | −1.20 | 0.23 | 2.20±0.14 | 2.23±0.16* | −0.71 | 0.48 |
| Blood potassium (mmol/L) | 3.85±0.42 | 3.93±0.56 | −0.06 | 0.95 | 3.92±0.47 | 4.13±0.54 | −0.94 | 0.35 |
| Blood sodium (mmol/L) | 137.58±4.04 | 138.19±4.95 | −0.85 | 0.39 | 137.59±5.31 | 138.91±4.70 | −0.53 | 0.59 |
Compared with self before intervention (P<0.05).
Group 1: EN+PN or total parenteral group; Group 2: Total enteral group.
Table 6.
Changes in biochemical indicators for patients with high nutritional risk before and after intervention (mean±SD).
| Biochemical indicator | Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n=13) | Group 2 (n=39) | Z | P | Group 1 (n=13) | Group 2 (n=39) | Z | P | |
| Total protein (g/L) | 57.80±8.18 | 61.11±7.21 | −1.52 | 0.13 | 59.97±8.17 | 65.96±7.86* | −2.17 | 0.03 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 28.79±4.67 | 31.17±4.38 | −1.78 | 0.08 | 31.42±3.93 | 34.74±4.27* | −2.05 | 0.04 |
| Blood calcium (mmol/L) | 2.01±0.13 | 2.15±0.17 | −2.83 | 0.01 | 2.19±0.10* | 2.23±0.18* | −0.18 | 0.86 |
| Blood potassium (mmol/L) | 4.11±0.64 | 3.66±0.47 | −2.11 | 0.04 | 4.40±0.61 | 4.14±0.53* | −1.00 | 0.32 |
| Blood sodium (mmol/L) | 136.48±7.35 | 138.49±5.31 | −0.55 | 0.58 | 138.36±7.45 | 143.27±19.09 | −0.75 | 0.45 |
Compared with self before intervention (P<0.05).
Group 1: EN+PN or total parenteral group; Group 2: Total enteral group.
Discussion
Malnutrition in hospitalized patients leads to numerous adverse clinical outcomes, including increased rates of infection and complications, muscle loss, delayed healing, prolonged hospital stays, higher treatment costs, and elevated morbidity and mortality rates [25]. Elderly patients are especially susceptible to illness-related malnutrition, marked by imbalances in protein and energy, hormonal irregularities, and decreased appetite [26]. Daud et al found the crucial role of nutritional status in determining outcomes among elderly patients with sepsis. Malnourished individuals experienced higher rates of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, mortality, and prolonged hospitalization, underscoring that poor nutrition may impair immune defense, wound healing, and metabolic recovery [27]. The importance of nutritional support as part of comprehensive patient care is further reinforced by evidence from post-stroke rehabilitation research. A recent study demonstrated that integrating nutrition management with rehabilitation and oral care – the so-called triad approach – was strongly associated with improvements in activities of daily living, muscle strength, and skeletal muscle mass among older adults recovering from stroke. This multidisciplinary model found that targeted nutritional interventions, when combined with coordinated functional and oral management strategies, can enhance recovery and overall health outcomes in vulnerable populations [28]. In a large Egyptian cohort, nearly half of the hospitalized elderly population had a high nutritional risk based on the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), which was significantly associated with longer hospital stays, increased incidence of bedsores, higher rates of hospital-acquired infections, and greater mortality. Early identification of patients at nutritional risk allows for timely intervention, which may reduce complications, shorten hospitalization, and improve overall survival – an approach particularly relevant for elderly sepsis patients [29].
Our study revealed a high incidence rate of nutritional risk among middle-aged and elderly hospitalized patients (70.48%), showing a notable increase with advancing age. Additionally, patients with type 2 diabetes, pulmonary infections, gastrointestinal diseases, chronic kidney disease, and anemia exhibited a heightened susceptibility to nutritional risk. The top 3 diagnoses leading to hospitalization were hypertension (67.84%), type 2 diabetes (46.26%), and coronary heart disease (42.73%). These findings align with research by Fengxia, underscoring that individuals with chronic ailments, characterized by prolonged illness durations, represent a high-risk demographic for nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition [30]. Similarly, type 2 diabetes mellitus has been identified as an independent risk factor for malnutrition among patients in a rehabilitation unit [31]. According to Finestone et al, the diabetic diet provided in the acute care unit may have been overly restrictive, resulting in higher instances of malnutrition upon admission to the rehabilitation unit. The incidence of malnutrition, defined by patient serum albumin concentration below 30 g/L, was particularly high (53%) among geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [32]. The Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) revealed a correlation between nutritional risk status and CKD stages. Among non-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), 44.9% were found to be at nutritional risk. This risk varied with CKD staging, affecting 53.6% of patients in stages 4–5 and 38.3% of those in stages 1–3. These findings emphasize the importance of monitoring the nutritional status of CKD patients, including those in the early stages, in clinical practice [33]. Hence, future clinical nutrition management should prioritize enhancing hospital dietary provisions for the elderly.
This study examined 160 patients with nutritional risk and identified key trends in nutritional support recommendations and their implementation. Among the patients, 11.25% with nutritional risk were not recommended for nutritional support, while 8.96% without nutritional risk were advised to receive nutritional support, primarily in the form of ONS. Health education had the highest implementation rate, at 98.73%, highlighting its importance in adjusting patients’ dietary habits. Conversely, the implementation rate for patients treated with ONS alone was the lowest, at 83.87%. This lower uptake may be attributed to several factors, including limited patient understanding of the benefits of ONS, psychological resistance to supplementation, and practical challenges such as taste preferences, cost, and difficulties in procurement or administration, particularly among elderly individuals with reduced mobility or cognitive decline. Communication between dieticians and clinicians predominantly occurred on the consultation day, with insufficient follow-up on nutritional support plans. A long-term follow-up mechanism is necessary for effective clinical nutrition management. Involving family members in the nutrition treatment planning for elderly patients can improve the effectiveness of nutrition education, addressing challenges such as hearing loss and decline in executive function. The study also found that patients receiving nutrition consultation within 1 week of admission had significantly shorter hospital stays, underscoring the importance of early recognition and monitoring of nutritional risk and malnutrition. This approach can enhance the health, economic, and social benefits of general hospitals by ensuring the rational use of medical resources.
In this study, the total proteins and albumin in the total enteral nutrition (TEN) support group of low nutritional risk patients were significantly higher than those in the EN+PN or total parenteral nutrition (TPN) group. This suggests that TEN might be more effective in improving nutritional status for patients with low nutritional risk. A study revealed that elderly hospitalized patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus exhibited statistically significant differences in serum albumin, hemoglobin B, and lymphocyte counts when compared to those without increased nutritional risk [33]. Furthermore, both groups showed improvement in nutritional indicators, but the EN+PN/TPN group had significant increases in key indicators like total protein, albumin, and blood calcium, which indicates that for patients with high nutritional risk, EN+PN or TPN might be more effective in improving certain nutritional indicators than TEN. Also, Chen et al reported the nutritional risk ratio of the patients with esophageal carcinoma who received family enteral nutrition (FEN) was lower than that of the control group 1 month after discharge [34]. These results carry several clinical and policy implications. Clinically, hospitals should integrate routine nutritional risk screening into admission protocols, ideally within the first 48 hours. Establishing multidisciplinary nutrition teams – including dietitians, physicians, and nursing staff – can ensure timely and coordinated interventions. Standardized procedures for prescribing and monitoring ONS are essential to improve adherence and outcomes. From a policy perspective, nutrition care should be embedded into hospital quality metrics and accreditation standards. Allocating dedicated funding to support ONS supply chains, staff training, and caregiver education programs will help sustain effective nutrition management systems and reduce the burden of malnutrition among elderly inpatients.
Limitations
This study has several limitations inherent to its retrospective design. First, the sample size of the EN+PN or TPN group was relatively small, which may reduce statistical power and limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the collected data lacked comprehensive patient-reported outcomes and long-term follow-up, which restricts our ability to assess sustained benefits of nutritional interventions.
The absence of detailed dietary intake records and adherence tracking may have introduced bias in evaluating the effectiveness of specific nutrition strategies. Furthermore, as a single-center study, institutional practices and resource availability may have influenced implementation rates and outcomes, limiting the applicability of results to other settings.
To address these limitations, future research should involve larger, multicenter cohorts and use prospective study designs. Including qualitative assessments of patient and caregiver experiences could provide deeper insights into barriers to nutritional compliance. Longitudinal tracking of outcomes such as readmission rates, functional recovery, and quality of life would also help evaluate the long-term impact of tailored nutrition interventions in elderly hospitalized populations.
Conclusions
The incidence of nutritional risk among elderly hospitalized patients is notably high. This study demonstrated the importance of tailored nutritional interventions based on individual risk levels. For patients with low nutritional risk, EN was effective in improving nutritional indicators. Conversely, for patients with higher nutritional risk, combining PN with EN – while accounting for the specific clinical characteristics – proved beneficial. These targeted approaches can optimize nutritional status and enhance overall patient outcomes. To translate these findings into practice, healthcare providers should implement standardized nutrition risk screening within 48 hours of admission and initiate early nutritional interventions to reduce complications and hospital stay duration. Actively involving family members in nutrition education and care planning is essential, particularly for elderly patients with cognitive or functional limitations. These strategies not only improve compliance and recovery but also support the development of more effective and sustainable nutrition management systems in hospital settings.
Footnotes
Financial support: None declared
Conflict of interest: None declared
Publisher’s note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher
References
- 1.Grassi M, Petraccia L, Mennuni G, et al. Changes, functional disorders, and diseases in the gastrointestinal tract of elderly. Nutr Hosp. 2011;26(4):659–68. doi: 10.1590/S0212-16112011000400001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shlisky J, Bloom DE, Beaudreault AR, et al. Nutritional considerations for healthy aging and reduction in age-related chronic disease. Adv Nutr. 2017;8(1):17–26. doi: 10.3945/an.116.013474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sharami SH, Vojoudi E, Zarei-Behjani Z, et al. From challenges to solutions: The promise of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering in restoring female reproductive health. Heliyon. 2025;11(12):e43484. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kaur D, Rasane P, Singh J, et al. Nutritional interventions for elderly and considerations for the development of geriatric foods. Curr Aging Sci. 2019;12(1):15–27. doi: 10.2174/1874609812666190521110548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sharoni SKA, Hassan NHN, Budury S, et al. Prevalence of obesity and health-promoting lifestyle profile among Malaysian and Indonesian nurses. The Malaysian Journal of Nursing (MJN) 2025;16(4):112–21. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Reber E, Gomes F, Vasiloglou MF, et al. Nutritional risk screening and assessment. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7):1065. doi: 10.3390/jcm8071065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Besora-Moreno M, Llauradó E, Tarro L, Solà R. Social and economic factors and malnutrition or the risk of malnutrition in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutrients. 2020;12(3):737. doi: 10.3390/nu12030737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kiosia A, Dagbasi A, Berkley JA, et al. The double burden of malnutrition in individuals: Identifying key challenges and re thinking research focus. Nutr Bull. 2024;49(2):132–45. doi: 10.1111/nbu.12670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Qing H, Zhang X-D, Yang E, et al. Nutritional status and nutritional intervention of older inpatients in China. J Nutr Health Aging. 2024;28(3):100169. doi: 10.1016/j.jnha.2024.100169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Liu R, Shao W, Sun N, et al. Prevalence and the factors associated with malnutrition risk in elderly Chinese inpatients. Aging Med (Milton) 2021;4(2):120–27. doi: 10.1002/agm2.12143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Agarwal E, Ferguson M, Banks M, et al. Nutritional status and dietary intake of acute care patients: results from the Nutrition Care Day Survey 2010. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(1):41–47. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2011.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bellanti F, Lo Buglio A, Quiete S, Vendemiale G. Malnutrition in hospitalized old patients: Screening and diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and management. Nutrients. 2022;14(4):910. doi: 10.3390/nu14040910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Loss SH, Teichmann PdV, Pedroso de Paula T, et al. Nutrition as a risk for mortality and functionality in critically ill older adults. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2022;46(8):1867–74. doi: 10.1002/jpen.2431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ooi FK, Zahari NZ, Chen CK, et al. Combined effect of honey supplementation and walking exercise on antioxidant enzyme markers in 50 to 65 years old postmenopausal women. Malaysian Journal of Medical Research. 2025;9(3):9–19. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chen W, Peng M, Ye Z, Ai Y, Liu Z. The mode and timing of administrating nutritional treatment of critically ill elderly patients in intensive care units: A multicenter prospective study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024;11:1321599. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1321599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Keikha F, Moghadam FR, Shoarishoar SS, et al. The efficacy of intraovarian versus subcutaneous corifollitropin alfa administration in DuoStim protocol for infertile women with low in vitro fertilization response. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025;51(5):e16316. doi: 10.1111/jog.16316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Khaledi M, Darvishi M, Sameni F, et al. Association between exercise and changes in gut microbiota profile: A review. Sport Sciences for Health. 2024;20(2):273–86. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ahmed T, Haboubi N. Assessment and management of nutrition in older people and its importance to health. Clin Interv Aging. 2010;5:207–16. doi: 10.2147/cia.s9664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kopp Lugli A, de Watteville A, Hollinger A, et al. Medical nutrition therapy in critically ill patients treated on intensive and intermediate care units: A literature review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(9):1395. doi: 10.3390/jcm8091395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Aprile G, Basile D, Giaretta R, et al. The clinical value of nutritional care before and during active cancer treatment. Nutrients. 2021;13(4):1196. doi: 10.3390/nu13041196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Erickson N, Sullivan ES, Kalliostra M, et al. Nutrition care is an integral part of patient-centred medical care: A European consensus. Med Oncol. 2023;40(4):112. doi: 10.1007/s12032-023-01955-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Li Y, Chen T, Zhang Z. The impact of population aging on FDI: A panel data analysis based on 27 segments in China’s manufacturing industry. PLoS One. 2024;19(2):e0297485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Thoresen L, Frykholm G, Lydersen S, et al. Nutritional status, cachexia and survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Different assessment criteria for nutritional status provide unequal results. Clin Nutr. 2013;32(1):65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.05.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zhu M, Cui H, Chen W, et al. Guidelines for parenteral and enteral nutrition in geriatric patients in China. Aging Med (Milton) 2020;3(2):110–24. doi: 10.1002/agm2.12110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ahmed I, Kaifi HM, Tahir H, Javed A. Malnutrition among patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(1):64. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.1.5485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(1):49–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Daud M, Ullah F, Uzair M, et al. Malnutrition and its influence on sepsis outcomes in elderly patients. Cureus. 2024;16(6):e63433. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yoshimura Y, Shimazu S, Shiraishi A, et al. Triad of rehabilitation, nutrition support, and oral management improves activities of daily living and muscle health in hospitalized patients after stroke. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2024;63:837–44. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mohammed HO, Hassan AM, Mostafa A, et al. Geriatric nutritional risk index and adverse medical outcomes among Egyptian patients admitted to a geriatric hospital: A prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04671-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Fengxia X. Nutrition consultation intervention chronic disease nutrition status analysis of 135 cases. World Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine. 2016;11(11):1556–59. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bourdel-Marchasson I, Sinclair A. Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus-the need for high-quality, inpatient diabetes care. Hosp Pract (1995) 2013;41(4):51–56. doi: 10.3810/hp.2013.10.1080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Finestone HM, Greene-Finestone LS, Wilson ES, Teasell RW. Malnutrition in stroke patients on the rehabilitation service and at follow-up: Prevalence and predictors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(4):310–16. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80655-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Tan R, Long J, Fang S, et al. Nutritional Risk Screening in patients with chronic kidney disease. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2016;25(2):249–56. doi: 10.6133/apjcn.2016.25.2.24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chen T, Jiang W, He G. Effect of family enteral nutrition on nutritional status in elderly patients with esophageal carcinoma after minimally invasive radical surgery: A randomized trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(6):6760–67. doi: 10.21037/apm-21-1219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]