Conectar
To explore the association of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) with in-hospital mortality and costs in older inpatients and to compare these associations between cancer and non-cancer patients to inform clinical practice.
Retrospective observational study.
A hospital-based study was conducted in Southwest China between January 2018 and December 2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and anthropometric data of inpatients aged 65 and over, along with hospitalisation deaths and costs, were collected through the Hospital Information System of a general hospital and its affiliates. GNRI was calculated at admission to assess nutritional risk. Marginal structural models and stratified analyses estimated hospitalisation outcomes for older inpatients with and without various types of cancer across different nutritional risk grades.
Among 37,267 participants, in-hospital mortality and costs increased with higher nutritional risk. Older inpatients with major nutritional risk had significantly higher mortality and costs than those with no nutritional risk. Older cancer inpatients with major nutritional risk had the highest mortality and costs, significantly exceeding those of non-cancer inpatients. For each cancer type, increased nutritional risk was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs. Respiratory cancer inpatients with major nutritional risk had the highest mortality, while digestive cancer inpatients had the highest costs.
Higher GNRI-assessed nutritional risk was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and costs in older inpatients, with stronger associations observed in cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients. Integrating GNRI into routine nursing practice could have significant clinical and economic benefits by promoting early nutritional screening in patient care and targeted interventions to reduce mortality and healthcare costs in high-risk populations.
Integrating GNRI assessment into routine patient care can effectively identify patients at high risk for in-hospital mortality and costs, allowing for timely nutritional support to enhance patient outcomes. GNRI, as a simple and globally applicable tool, can be integrated into diverse healthcare settings, providing an effective method for nutritional risk screening in older patients. When applying GNRI in clinical nursing and medical practice, special consideration should be given to the presence and type of cancer, as cancer patients with severe nutritional risk may benefit the most from targeted interventions.
What problem did the study address? This study investigated the association between GNRI-assessed nutritional risk and in-hospital mortality and costs in older inpatients. It further examined whether these associations differ between cancer and non-cancer patients and among different cancer types to improve clinical application.
What were the main findings? The study found that higher nutritional risk assessed by GNRI was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and costs in older inpatients. These associations were stronger in older cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients, with respiratory cancers showing the highest mortality and digestive cancers incurring the highest costs. These findings emphasise the important role of nutritional screening using GNRI in patient care with varying clinical profiles and informing nursing and medical strategies globally, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact? The findings are relevant to older inpatients in hospital settings worldwide, particularly those with cancer, as well as to nurses and healthcare professionals. GNRI provides a practical and easily implementable tool for them to assess nutritional risks upon admission and guide timely nutritional support strategies based on clinical profiles including cancer presence and type in older inpatients. Incorporating GNRI into routine nursing care, nurses and healthcare professionals will be better equipped to address nutritional risks, ultimately improving patient care and optimising clinical and economic outcomes for older patients.
We have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines, specifically following the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines for reporting this observational study.
No public contribution was required in the design or conduct of this research. Patients contributed through data collected from the Hospital Information System, which was used for analysis.
To investigate whether chronic diseases are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and explore factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in patients with chronic diseases.
Vaccine hesitancy has been acknowledged as one of the greatest hazards to public health. However, little information is available about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases who may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe disease or death.
From 6 to 9 August 2021, we performed an internet-based cross-sectional survey with 22,954 participants (14.78% participants with chronic diseases). Propensity score matching with 1:1 nearest neighbourhood was used to reduce confounding factors between patients with chronic diseases and the general population. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, the factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified among patients with chronic diseases.
Both before and after propensity score matching, patients with chronic diseases had higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than the general population. In addition, self-reported poor health, multiple chronic diseases, lower sociodemographic backgrounds and lower trust in nurses and doctors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases.
Patients with chronic diseases were more hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. Nurses should focus on patients with chronic diseases with poor health conditions, low socioeconomic backgrounds and low trust in the healthcare system.
Clinical nurses are recommended to not only pay more attention to the health status and sociodemographic characteristics of patients with chronic diseases but also build trust between nurses and patients by improving service levels and professional capabilities in clinical practice.
Patients or the public were not involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, or the design or implementation of the study. However, all participants were invited to complete the digital informed consent and questionnaires.
Operative therapy for superficial esophagus carcinoma is the main way to treat the disease. Endoscopic excision of lesions in the esophagus has become an alternative to surgical treatment for patients with esophageal carcinoma. To overcome the disadvantages of endoscope mucosa excision (EMR), an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique has been developed. Although ESD is one of the most effective methods of endoscopy in patients with digestive tract tumors, there are potential complications after surgery, including hemorrhage in the surgical area and stenosis of the esophagus. The objective of this study was to evaluate EMR versus ESD based on post-operative hemorrhage and esophagus stenosis. All the related articles were retrieved from the e-databases. The main results were postoperative perforation, hemorrhage, and stenosis after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound hemorrhage (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.36–3.29 p = 0.89). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of perforation after surgery (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.17–1.95 p = 0.37). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of esophageal stricture after surgery (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26–5.15 p = 0.85). This analysis was different from the earlier meta-analysis because ESD and EMR did not show any notable differences with respect to the incidence of perforation after surgery, the hemorrhage of the wound or the stenosis of the esophagus. These findings must, however, be supported by more high-quality studies.
FreshRSS 