Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 14;3:60. doi: 10.1186/s40795-017-0177-8

Table 3.

Estimates of screening; nutrition assessment; nutrition diagnoses; food intake & body weight monitoring by site (n = 700)

Screening & risk identification: Overall (N = 700) Site A
(N = 152)
Site B (N = 119) Site C (N = 159) Site D (N = 131) Site E (N = 139)
Screened for malnutrition 35.5% ** (n = 249/ 700)

76.3%

(n = 116/ 152)

0%

(n = 0/119)

25.8% (n = 41/159)

0%

(n = 0/131)

66.1% (n = 92/139)
 Of those screened, AT RISK 36.1% (n = 89/246)a,b

31%

(n = 35/113) a

N/A 56.1% (n = 23/41) N/A 33.7% (n = 31/92)
Comprehensive dietitian nutrition assessment
 % receiving comprehensive dietitian assessments 27.9% ** (n = 195/700)

25%

(n = 38/152)

16.8% (n = 20/119) 23.9% (n = 38/159) 38.9% (n = 51/131) 34.5% (n = 48/139)
Nutrition diagnoses
 % who received a nutrition diagnosis 26.1% ** (n = 183/700)

24.3%

(n = 37/152)

13.4% (n = 16/119) 22.0% (n = 35/159) 37.4% (n = 49/131) 33.1% (n = 46/139)
Food intake monitoring
 % who had food intake monitored

6.2% **

(n = 43/699) a

0%

4.2%

(n = 5/119)

0.6%

(n = 1/158) a

8.4%

(n = 11/131)

18.7% (n = 26/139)
Body weight recorded at admission
 % who had their body weight recorded at admission 47.9% ** (n = 335/700)

14.5%

(n = 22/152)

16.8% (n = 20/119) 78% (n = 124/159) 93.1% (n = 122/131) 33.8% (n = 47/139)
Body weight monitoring
 % who had their body weight monitored during their time in hospital 17.5% ** (n = 122/699) a

17.8%

(n = 27/152)

10.9% (n = 13/119)

1.9%

(n = 3/158) a

16%

(n = 21/131)

41.7% (n = 58/139)

**indicates statistically significant difference across sites (p < 0.0001)

aIndicates missing data

bIndicates use of Fishers’ exact test rather than chi-square