Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical Interventions in Aging logoLink to Clinical Interventions in Aging
. 2026 Feb 19;21:536129. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S536129

Small Sample, Big Challenges: Addressing Malnutrition in Non-Acute Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department

Anne Griffin 1,2,✉, Cerenay Sarier 1, Emma Brennan 1, Sheila Bowers 3, Aoife Whiston 1,2,4, Mairead Conneely 1,2, Rose Galvin 1,2
PMCID: PMC12927798  PMID: 41737908

Abstract

Purpose

In Ireland, the rise in older adults visiting the ED and being discharged home has led to high rates of adverse outcomes, including disease-related malnutrition. The purpose of this study was to describe the nutrition care needs of older adults as part of a feasibility study exploring a multicomponent transition-to-home intervention from the ED.

Methods

Nutrition characteristics were assessed using clinical records and dietetic assessments from participants in the intervention arm of the ED PLUS pilot RCT. Data were analyzed using the Nutrition Care Process Model to identify nutrition-related problems, estimated intake, and response to intervention.

Results

Our study included nine participants with an average age of 79.5 years. Living arrangements varied, with some living independently, others with formal support, and some with family support. Malnutrition risk was identified using MNA-SF with three participants meeting the threshold. All reported nutritional impact symptoms, with average energy and protein intakes below recommendations. Dietetic interventions were needed for all participants.

Conclusion

While limited by sample size, these exploratory findings offer real-world insights into the nutrition care needs of older adults discharged from the ED and may inform current practice and future research.

Keywords: malnutrition, older adults, dietetics, emergency department, nutrition care

Introduction

The increasing ageing population alongside the consequent higher number of individuals living with multimorbidity are demographic drivers of incremental increases in Emergency Department (ED) attendances internationally.1,2 Older adults experience high rates of adverse outcomes post discharge from the ED as they encounter a period of increased vulnerability.3–6

Malnutrition is a condition resulting from inadequate intake or an inability to absorb and/or digest adequate energy and/or protein.7 Malnutrition can be caused by both acute and chronic disease- associated inflammation, injury or other mechanisms that lead to altered body composition (eg reduced muscle mass) and decline in biological functions (eg delayed wound healing).8–10

We have previously reported that over one-third of older adults admitted to an Irish ED are either malnourished or at risk of malnourishment.11 We found that malnutrition was associated with a longer stay in the ED, functional decline, poorer quality of life, increased risk of hospital admissions and a greater likelihood of admission to a nursing home at 30 days. Similar findings have been reported globally, including the USA, UK, Spain, and Belgium.12–16 Deterioration in nutrition is always accompanied by functional decline17 and malnutrition should be considered a serious clinical risk factor.7 Malnutrition in older adults presenting to the ED is generally under diagnosed.18,19 While studies have reported the general factors (eg demographic, medical conditions, social, psychological, healthcare usage, etc.) associated with the prevalence of malnutrition among older adults presenting to ED,13,14,20,21 few have provided detail on the clinical nutrition characteristics or the dietetic intervention required to manage the malnutrition and evaluate therapy outcome measures on discharge.2,22–25

The Nutrition Care Process Model is a structured, evidence-based approach used by dietitians to assess, diagnose, and manage nutrition-related health issues through personalized care.26,27 The aim of this study was to describe the nutrition characteristics among nine older adults who presented to the ED, were triaged, and subsequently discharged without requiring hospital admission.

Methods

This is a descriptive study of the nutrition status and dietetic measures among participants in the intervention arm of a three-arm pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT), ED PLUS.28 Ethics approval was obtained from the HSE Mid-Western Area Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 088/2020). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.

The methods for the pilot feasibility RCT are published in detail elsewhere.29 The trial is registered at Clinical trials.gov (NCT049836020). In brief, participants were community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years who presented to the ED with undifferentiated medical complaints between Monday and Thursday, 8:00 AM–5:00 PM. Eligibility criteria included medical stability (as assessed by the treating physician), a score of ≥2 on the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) screening tool,30 a predicted ED stay of ≤72 hours, and a confirmed negative COVID-19 test on presentation. Eligible participants who were subsequently discharged were randomized into one of three intervention arms. While the inclusion criteria ensured a focused and clinically relevant sample, the small sample size may limit the extent to which findings can be generalized.

ED PLUS aimed to provide a continuum of care from the ED to the patient’s home through addressing participants’ issues with mobility, strength, balance, malnutrition, medication adherence, fatigue and enable self-management.29 Figure 1 outlines the frequency and format of sessions held with participants.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Frequency and format of ED PLUS sessions.

Malnutrition risk was screened at the index visit using the Mini Nutritional Assessment – Short Form (MNA-SF)31 to determine nutrition status: “malnourished” (0–7 points), “at risk of malnourishment” (8–11 points), and “normal nutritional status” (12–14 points). Weight (kg) was measured at the index and last home visit using an Omron BF511 Body Composition Monitor scale. Height was measured at the index visit using a portable Leicester Height Measure. Body Mass Index (BMI kg/m2) was calculated and interpreted with reference to age-specific centiles for older Irish adults and to GLIM low-BMI thresholds, one of the phenotypic indicators within the GLIM malnutrition criteria.32,33

A registered dietitian conducted the nutritional assessment via telephone in week 3 of the ED PLUS programme, averaging 45–60 minutes. The nutrition assessment followed the Nutrition Care Process Model26,27 as adapted by the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute.34 See supplementary file 1: Dietetic outcome measures.

Dietary intake and pattern was assessed by diet history and subsequently analyzed for nutritional content (per day: energy (kcals); protein (g); carbohydrate (g), of which sugars (g), fibre (g); total fat (g), of which saturated fat (g), polyunsaturated (g), monounsaturated (g), omega 3 (g); sodium (mg), calcium (mg), vitamin D (µg), iron (mg) and fluids (mL)) using Nutritics software (v5.85; 2019). Nutrient intake analysis excluded contributions from supplements and fortified foods, which were introduced only during the dietary intervention and were not present at baseline. Clinical recommendations of 30 kcal/kg body weight/ day for people aged over 65 years, and adjusted for gender, nutritional status, disease state and physical activity and protein intake of at least 1.0 g/kg/day were used for comparison.23 Micronutrient intakes were compared to the recommendations for healthy older persons according to Irish and European Food Safety Authorities.35,36

Descriptive data analysis was conducted using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0), with measures including mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and range used to summarize participant demographics, clinical characteristics, nutritional intake, and anthropometric data. Missing data were left blank and not imputed, consistent with the exploratory nature of the feasibility study. Descriptive statistics of the demographic and dietetic measures data are presented as a table to profile the clinical nutrition characteristics of the individual participants.

Results

Participant Demographics

Nine participants (7 female) received dietetic consultation. Individual level characteristics including demographic and presenting complaint at index visit, nutrition impact symptoms, dietary analysis and anthropometrics related to nutrition care are shown in Table 1. The average age was 79.5 (SD 8.26; range of 66–89) years old. All patients reported comorbidities, with n=6 living with multiple conditions. These included chronic kidney disease (n=2), diverticular disease (n=1), arthritis (n=5), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n=1), osteoporosis (n=1), mental health problems (n=1), irritable bowel syndrome (n=1), vascular disease (n=3), and type 2 diabetes (n=1).37

Table 1.

Individual Level Characteristics Including Demographic and Clinical Condition at Index Visit, Nutrition Impact Symptoms, Dietary Analysis and Anthropometrics Related to Nutrition Care

Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Demographic and clinical condition at index visit
Age (years) 69 89 85 82 66 85 84 72 84
Sex Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Male
Meal provision Self Carer Self Meals on Wheels/family Self Carer Meals on Wheels/family Self Self
Living situation With spouse Alone Alone With grown children With sibling Religious order Alone Alone With spouse
Presenting complaint Fall Unwell Hip Pain Fracture Back Pain Fall Chest Pain Fall Fall
Comorbidity (#) Yes (1) Yes (1) Yes (2)+ Yes (3)+ Yes (2)+ Yes (1) Yes (2)+ Yes (2)+ Yes (2)+
Malnutrition (MNA-SF) 14 9+ 14 14 10+ 14 11+ 14 14
Barthel Index Score 19 15 18 18 18 18 18 20 16
Nutritional Impact Symptoms
Oral health Dentures+ Dentures/Pain+ NA NA Recent oral thrush+ Eczema+ Dry mouth+ Ulcers+ Dry mouth+
Appetite score 8 1+ 5 3+ 1+ 7 7 7 9
Abdominal discomfort None None None Yes+ Yes+ None None Yes+ None
Reported Bowel movements Normal Normal Severe constipation+ Mild constipation+ Varies Normal Normal Normal Normal
Risk of dehydration Mild+ Mild+ Mild+ Hydrated Mild+ Mild+ Mild+ Mild+ Mild+
Dietary analysis*
Energy intake (Kcal/kg/d) 25.8+ 29.4+ 22.5+ 17.5+ 11.0+ 21.1+ 18.0+ 25.2+ 13.0+
Protein intake g/kg/d 0.9+ 1.5 1.3 0.6+ 0.5+ 0.8+ 0.8+ 1.2 0.6+
Fiber Intake Vs Requirement (g/d) 19.9 vs 26+ 19.5 vs 18.3 11.5 vs 18.7+ 12.8 vs 18.0+ 9.7 vs 13.3+ 17.5 vs 19.2+ 18.6 vs 17.7 20.9 vs 21.3+ 15.0 vs 13.7
Total Fluid Intake (mL/d) 1104+ 1864 1364+ 1727 584+ 2484 2074 1201+ 1021+
BMI (Kg/m2) 30.0 20.6+ 25.5 34.0 36.6 31.3 28.7 24.2 28.4
Nutrition diagnosis
Nutrition Problem identified Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit Inadequate protein energy intake Limited access to food Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit Inadequate protein energy intake Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit Food and nutrition related knowledge deficit
Open in a new tab

Notes: +Nutrition concern. # Number of comorbidities present (eg, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, etc). MNA-SF: Mini Nutritional Assessment – Short Form31 to determine nutrition status: “malnourished” (0–7 points), “at risk of malnourishment” (8–11 points), and “normal nutritional status” (12–14 points). Barthel Index Score:37 Total possible scores range from 0–20, with lower scores indicating increased disability. Appetite score:2 1=no appetite; 10=excellent appetite. *Dietary reference targets (ESPEN):23 Energy, 30kcal/kg/bodyweight/day; Protein, 1.2–1.5g/kg/bodyweight/day; Fibre, energy intake (MJ) x 3g; Total Fluid, 1.6L females, and 2L males per day. GLIM criteria:32 Moderate malnutrition, BMI < 20kg/m2 if < 70 years or <22kg/m2 if >70 years.

Anthropometry

The average bodyweight at baseline was 75.4kg (SD = 12.4). Three participants are ≥ 90th centile, three fall between 75th – 90th centile and three between 10th - 50th centile of BMI for similar age and sex.33 At the 6-week follow up, patient 1 had gained a clinically significant 567g in bodyweight per week. Otherwise, participants’ weights could be described as relatively stable over time.23

Nutrition Assessment

One-third of the older adults (n=3, 2 female) screened at risk of malnutrition using the MNA-SF tool (Table 1). Of these, one participant can be considered clinically underweight with a BMI of <22kg/m2 and aged over 70 years32 and two had a BMI >25kg/m2 that would classify as overweight/obese.38

Nutritional impact symptoms were reported among all participants (Table 1). Eight participants reported more than one symptom. The most common concern was hydration status. Participants were estimated to be consuming between 584 mL/day and 2484 mL/day of total fluid from both food and beverages. Five participants reported an appetite score of 7 or higher out of ten (excellent appetite). Two participants reported appetites of 1 (no appetite) out of 10. Three participants reported digestive issues related to feeling nauseous.

Four participants reported that they received external support with the provision of meals including Meals on Wheels service (MOW, n=2; Table 1). Of these, two participants reported missing meals on the days that home help or MOW was not delivered. In relation to grocery shopping, three participants did their own shopping, four participants had shopping completed by family members or neighbors, one participant completed their grocery shopping online and one participant was not concerned (living with a religious order).

Dietary Assessment

The average total energy intake reported among the group was 1471.56kcal (SD = 285) per day. 23 The average intakes were 20.4kcal/kg/day (range 11–29.4kcal/kg/day) with none meeting the clinical recommendation for energy intake in older adults of 30kcals/kg/d.

The average total protein intake was 65.9g/d (SD = 13) ranging from 47g – 83g per day. Average protein intakes were 0.9 (0.3) g/kg/day. At an individual level, three participants were meeting the clinical recommendation of at least 1.0/kg/d.23 Furthermore, three participants did not meet the recommended 0.83g/kg/d for healthy older adults.35 Of the 3 participants screened at risk of malnutrition, two failed to meet energy and protein requirements. High quality protein foods36 were most frequently consumed in the afternoon and evening with many (6/9 participants) consuming low protein breakfast options such as toast with butter and jam or marmalade, porridge made with water or fruit.

Average total intake of fiber was 16.2g/d (SD =3.8g/d, range 9.7–20.9g/d; Table 1) with four participants meeting dietary recommendations.36

Total fluid intake (from all sources) is shown in Table 1. Only one participant consumed an adequate volume to meet both current health and clinical nutrition recommendations.23,36 Four reached recommendations when the additional fluid volume consumed from food was included.

In relation to non-prescribed supplementation, four participants consumed over-the-counter nutritional supplements including antioxidant (n=1), omega 3 fish oils (n = 2), a probiotic (n = 1), B vitamin complex (n = 1), glucosamine (n = 1), Vitamin D (n = 1), and a calcium supplement (n = 1).

Nutrition Diagnosis

The most common nutrition diagnosis among the participants was a lack of knowledge about food and nutrients, due to insufficient dietary education. This was evidenced by nutrient intake data that did not meet recommended requirements (Table 1). An inadequate protein energy intake and limited access to food related to decreased ability to consume adequate nutrients were also reported (n=3).

Dietetic Intervention

All participants required several dietetic interventions to improve nutritional status, including advice about weight management (n=2), heart health (n=2), increasing iron intake (n=2), chronic renal disease (n=1), type 2 diabetes (n=1), warfarin (n=1) and gut health (n=1). Referral to additional services including dentistry, pharmacy and local grocery delivery were noted.

Discussion

In this study, malnutrition is identified in three of nine participants. However, a comprehensive nutrition assessment completed by a registered dietitian identified risk to nutrition status indicating nutrition vulnerability and a need for personalized nutrition support among all participants. Deficits in nutritional intake evaluated against both healthy eating35,36 and clinical guidelines23 are reported. Hydration status with evidence of dehydration based on measures of fluid intake and output is a major concern reported in this study. A need for clear diagnostic criteria and a screening tool for dehydration has previously been reported.39 While clinical guidelines for nutrition provide evidence-based recommendations to support optimal dietary care, tailored to individual health needs and clinical conditions, are available23 the level of nutrition care in the ED is rarely reported.22 In particular, the deficit of food and nutritional knowledge reported among this cohort suggests a lack of prior exposure to dietary education highlighting the need for nutritional counselling to deliver advice appropriate to disease management.23,36 Individualized and comprehensive interventions that tackle malnutrition have been shown to have both health and quality of life benefits.23,39,40 The small number of older adults included in this study limits the true situation of malnutrition among older adults presenting to the ED. It is also acknowledged that participants who enrolled in the ED PLUS RCT may differ from the wider ED population, particularly in their capacity or willingness to engage in follow-up. Indeed, the health assessment and nutrition needs of older adults are recognised as complex and the health system that supports and manages healthcare intervention is complicated. While based on a small sample, this study highlights the potential value of piloting dietitian-led nutrition and hydration assessments in ED settings, guided by the Nutrition Care Process. The observed deficits in intake, hydration status, and nutrition knowledge suggest that individualized care and counselling may be beneficial and warrant further investigation.

Conclusions

Our findings support the value of reporting clinical nutrition characteristics in older adults discharged from the ED as a means of understanding nutrition-related risk and informing the development of transitionary care from the ED to home.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lorna Ryan, Registered Dietitian who performed the NCP. We would like to thank all members of the academic and emergency department research team: Aoife Leahy, Margaret O’Connor, Louise Barry, Gillian Corey, Íde O’Shaughnessy, Ida O’Carroll, Siobhán Leahy, Dominic Trépel, Damian Ryan, & Katie Robinson. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of the public and patient involvement group of older adults to the ED PLUS study.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a seed fund awarded by the Faculty of Education & Health Sciences, University of Limerick, 2021. The ED PLUS pilot feasibility randomized trial was supported by the Health Research Board (HRB) of Ireland (Health Research Board, Grattan House 67-72 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, D02 H638) through the HRB Collaborative Doctoral Awards under Grant CDA-2018-005 (“Right Care” Programme). The funder has no role in the study design, collection, management, analysis, interpretation of the data or writing of the protocol.

Data Sharing Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are openly available at https://osf.io/3hmda.

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was conducted with approval from the HSE Mid-Western Area Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 088/2020). No identifiable participant information (such as patients’ images, faces, or names) was disclosed in the study.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • 1.Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, Stankovich J, Kinsman L. Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0203316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.British Dietetic Association (BDA). Dietetic outcomes toolkit. 2021. Avaible from: https://www.peng.org.uk/pdfs/publications/dietetic-outcomes-toolkit-updated-march-2021.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2026.
  • 3.Gruneir A, Silver MJ, Rochon PA. Emergency department use by older adults: a literature review on trends, appropriateness, and consequences of unmet health care needs. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(2):131–9. doi: 10.1177/1077558710379422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carpenter CR, Shelton E, Fowler S, et al. Risk factors and screening instruments to predict adverse outcomes for undifferentiated older emergency department patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. AEM. 2015;22(1):1–21. doi: 10.1111/acem.12569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lowthian J, Straney LD, Brand CA, et al. Unplanned early return to the emergency department by older patients: the safe elderly emergency department discharge (SEED) project. Age Ageing. 2016;45(2):255–261. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dufour I, Chouinard M-C, Dubuc N, Beaudin J, Lafontaine S, Hudon C. Factors associated with frequent use of emergency-department services in a geriatric population: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1197-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition–an ESPEN consensus statement. Clin Nutr. 2015;34(3):335–340. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jensen GL, Mirtallo J, Compher C, et al. Adult starvation and disease‐related malnutrition: a proposal for etiology‐based diagnosis in the clinical practice setting from the international consensus guideline committee. J Parenteral Enteral Nutr. 2010;34(2):156–159. doi: 10.1177/0148607110361910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.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]
  • 10.Soeters PB, Reijven PL, Schols JM, Halfens RJ, Meijers JM, van Gemert WG. A rational approach to nutritional assessment. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(5):706–716. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Griffin A, O’Neill A, O’Connor M, Ryan D, Tierney A, Galvin R. The prevalence of malnutrition and impact on patient outcomes among older adults presenting at an Irish emergency department: a secondary analysis of the OPTI-MEND trial. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01852-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Burks CE, Jones CW, Braz VA, et al. Risk factors for malnutrition among older adults in the emergency department: a multicenter study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(8):1741–1747. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jiménez CB, Ovalle HF, Moreno MM, de la Fuente RA, de Luis Román D. Undernutrition measured by the mini nutritional assessment (MNA) test and related risk factors in older adults under hospital emergency care. Nutrition. 2019;66:142–146. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2019.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pereira GF, Bulik CM, Weaver MA, Holland WC, Platts-Mills TF. Malnutrition among cognitively intact, noncritically ill older adults in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(1):85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.07.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Deschodt M, Devriendt E, Sabbe M, et al. Characteristics of older adults admitted to the emergency department (ED) and their risk factors for ED readmission based on comprehensive geriatric assessment: a prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12877-015-0055-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Elias TC, Bowen J, Hassanzadeh R, Lasserson DS, Pendlebury ST. Factors associated with admission to bed-based care: observational prospective cohort study in a multidisciplinary same day emergency care unit (SDEC). BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01942-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oliveira MR, Fogaça KC, Leandro-Merhi VA. Nutritional status and functional capacity of hospitalized elderly. Nutr J. 2009;8(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-8-54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huang -H-H, Chang JC-Y, Tseng -C-C, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment in the emergency department for the prediction of readmission among older patients: a 3-month follow-up study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;92:104255. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Roberts HC, Lim SER, Cox NJ, Ibrahim K. The challenge of managing undernutrition in older people with frailty. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):808. doi: 10.3390/nu11040808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Calvo I, Olivar J, Martínez E, Rico A, Díaz J, Gimena M. MNA® mini nutritional assessment as a nutritional screening tool for hospitalized older adults; rationales and feasibility. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2012;27(5):1619–1625. doi: 10.3305/nh.2012.27.5.5888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gentile S, Lacroix O, Durand A, et al. Malnutrition: a highly predictive risk factor of short-term mortality in elderly presenting to the emergency department. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17(4):290–294. doi: 10.1007/s12603-012-0398-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sarier C, Conneely M, Bowers S, Dore L, Galvin R, Griffin A. What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):921. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05478-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Volkert D, Beck AM, Cederholm T, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):10–47. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Norman K, Haß U, Pirlich M. Malnutrition in older adults-recent advances and remaining challenges. Nutrients. 2021;13(8):2764. doi: 10.3390/nu13082764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Robinson SM. Improving nutrition to support healthy ageing: what are the opportunities for intervention? Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77(3):257–264. doi: 10.1017/S0029665117004037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Swan WI, Pertel DG, Hotson B, et al. Nutrition care process (NCP) update part 2: developing and using the NCP terminology to demonstrate efficacy of nutrition care and related outcomes. JAND. 2019;119(5):840–855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Swan WI, Vivanti A, Hakel-Smith NA, et al. Nutrition care process and model update: toward realizing people-centered care and outcomes management. JAND. 2017;117(12):2003–2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Conneely M, Leahy S, O’Connor M, et al. A physiotherapy-led transition to home intervention for older adults following emergency department discharge: a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial (ED PLUS). Clin Interv Aging. 2023;Volume 18:1769–1788. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S413961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Conneely M, Leahy A, O’Connor M, et al. A physiotherapy-led transition to home intervention for older adults following emergency department discharge: protocol for a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Study. 2022;8(1):1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00954-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McCusker J, Bellavance F, Cardin S, Trepanier S, Verdon J, Ardman O. Detection of older people at increased risk of adverse health outcomes after an emergency visit: the ISAR screening tool. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(10):1229–1237. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb05204.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Ramsch C, et al. Validation of the mini nutritional assessment short-form (MNA®-SF): a practical tool for identification of nutritional status. JNHA. 2009;13:782–788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cederholm T, Jensen G, Correia M, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition–A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. JCSM. 2019;10(1):207–217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Corish CA, Kennedy NP. Anthropometric measurements from a cross-sectional survey of Irish free-living elderly subjects with smoothed centile curves. Br J Nutr. 2003;89(1):137–145. doi: 10.1079/BJN2002748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute (INDI). Nutrition support reference guide. 2022:7–34.
  • 35.European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Dietary reference values for nutrients summary report. 2017; 2397–8325. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.e15121 [DOI]
  • 36.Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI). Scientific recommendations for food-based dietary guidelines for older adults. 2021. Available from: https://www.fsai.ie/DietaryGuidelines_OlderAdults_Ireland/. Accessed February 16, 2026.
  • 37.Mahoney FI, BARTHEL DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14(2):61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.WHO Consultation on Obesity & World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic: report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization; 2000. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/4233040. Accessed February 16, 2026. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Volkert D, Beck AM, Cederholm T, et al. Management of malnutrition in older patients—current approaches, evidence and open questions. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7):974. doi: 10.3390/jcm8070974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vivanti A, Isenring E, Baumann S, et al. Emergency department malnutrition screening and support model improves outcomes in a pilot randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(3):180. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2013-202965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are openly available at https://osf.io/3hmda.

Articles from Clinical Interventions in Aging are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

RESOURCES