Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41059595›Full record

ArticleNutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition2025

The effects of a dietitian-supported multidisciplinary nutrition intervention on optimizing nutrition care in older patients with hip fracture and at nutrition risk-A quality improvement study.

Tina Munk, Anne Marie Beck, Cecilie M Møller, Frederikke E Pudselykke, Guro Ø H Mikkelsen, Heidrun T Filtenborg, Trine S Pedersen, Jens Peter Alva-Jørgensen, Anne W Knudsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tina MunkDietetics and Nutrition Research Unit, EATEN, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8496-025X
Anne Marie BeckDietetics and Nutrition Research Unit, EATEN, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1210-0167
Cecilie M MøllerDietetics and Nutrition Research Unit, EATEN, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Frederikke E PudselykkeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Guro Ø H MikkelsenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Heidrun T FiltenborgDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Trine S PedersenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Jens Peter Alva-JørgensenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
Anne W KnudsenDietetics and Nutrition Research Unit, EATEN, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA 1-day cross-sectional study at our hospital found that only 22% of patients with hip fractures at nutrition risk met their energy and protein requirements during hospitalization. This study aimed to test whether closer collaboration between a clinical dietitian and ward staff, guided by the Model for Improvement, could optimize nutrition care for hospitalized older patients with hip fractures at nutrition risk.

methodA dietitian was embedded to facilitate staff-led enhancements in nutrition care at an orthopedic ward in from September to December 2024. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were implemented. Cycle 1 focused on nutrition documentation. Cycle 2 targeted nutrition intake. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients meeting individual energy and protein requirements (≥80%). Secondary process indicators were (1) ≥80% of patients screened using Nutrition Risk Screening 2002, and (2) ≥80% of at-risk patients with intake documented in the medical record. Preintervention data served as the baseline.

resultsThe primary outcome was achieved, with 80% (8 of 10) of patients meeting both energy and protein requirements, a significant improvement from 22% (2 of 9) at baseline (P < 0.05). Documentation of nutrition risk increased from 10% (1 of 10) to 80% (8 of 10) (P < 0.01), and intake documentation improved from 30% (3 of 10) to 100% (10 of 10) (P < 0.01).

conclusionThis quality improvement study demonstrates that applying the Model for Improvement to integrate a clinical dietitian into ward practice strengthened interdisciplinary nutrition care and led to measurable gains in screening, documentation, and nutrition intake among older patients with hip fractures at nutrition risk.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesMalnutritionNutritionistsNutrition TherapyQuality ImprovementAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDietary ProteinsEnergy IntakeFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleNutritional RequirementsNutritional StatusDietary Proteinsadultlife cyclenutritionnutrition assessmentnutrition support practicenutrition support teamsoutcomes research/qualityresearch and diseasesweight loss

Identifiers

PMID41059595
PMCPMC12590340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.