What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol.

Anne Griffin; Sarier Cerenay; Lorna Ryan; Mairéad Conneely; Sheila Bowers; Liz Dore; Rose Galvin

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.2

Home Browse What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol.

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Anne Griffin ^1,2, Sarier Cerenay^1,3, Lorna Ryan⁴, [...] Mairéad Conneely^1,2, Sheila Bowers⁴, Liz Dore⁵, Rose Galvin^1,2

Anne Griffin ^1,2, Sarier Cerenay^1,3, [...] Lorna Ryan⁴, Mairéad Conneely^1,2, Sheila Bowers⁴, Liz Dore⁵, Rose Galvin^1,2

PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2022

Author details Author details

¹ School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
² Ageing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
³ Faculty of Health and Science, Nutrition and Dietetic, Lokman Hekim University, Ankara, Turkey
⁴ Department of Clinical Nutrition & Dietetics, University of Limerick Hospital Group, Dooradoyle, Limerick, Ireland
⁵ Librarian for Education and Health Sciences, Glucksman Library, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Anne Griffin
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Sarier Cerenay
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lorna Ryan
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Mairéad Conneely
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Sheila Bowers
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Liz Dore
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rose Galvin
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Ageing Populations collection.

Abstract

Introduction: Nutrition status among older adults is an important factor in health and clinical outcomes but malnutrition goes unrecognised in routine health care. Older adults often present to emergency departments (ED) and are subsequently discharged without hospital admission. Discharge is a transitionary time of care when nutritional vulnerability could be mitigated with the instigation of targeted nutrition care pathways. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments.
Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources (DART-Europe E-theses portal, Open Grey, and Trip Medical database) and website searches (Google, Google Scholar, Pubmed, NICE and LENUS) to identify appropriate data for inclusion within the last 10 years. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a table charting the level of nutrition and dietetic care initiated for older adults in the ED according to the Nutrition Care Process Model. A narrative synthesis will be conducted.
Conclusions: This scoping review will be used to inform a foundational concept of nutrition care in an ED setting and allow the future examination of nutrition care pathways, practice, policy, and research within models of integrated care for older persons.

Keywords

Emergency medicine; integrated care pathways; malnutrition; nutrition and dietetics; older adults; nutrition care process

Corresponding author: Anne Griffin

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This scoping article is funded by Seed Funding awarded by the Faculty for Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick. The funders have had no influence in the development of the research question or methodological approach reported in this protocol.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Griffin A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Griffin A, Cerenay S, Ryan L et al. What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2022, 5:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.2) First published: 18 Jan 2022, 5:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.1) Latest published: 31 Aug 2022, 5:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Protocol V2 includes clarifications which were suggested by the reviewers. These include being specific about the age of the target population to ensure that only older adults > 65years of age are included, that nutrition care initiated within 72 hours of discharge from the ED to a hospital ward is an exclusion factor, a description of the Google searches and including the multidisciplinary team involved in providing care to older adults in the dissemination of the results from this study. Typos are corrected and amendments to sentences for readability have also been applied. The author list has been updated to include and recognise the work of Ms Cerenay Sarier who joined the study team on an Erasmus + research internship at the point of database searching.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Clare A. Corish
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Adrienne M Young

Introduction

The process of ageing has an impact on the nutritional status of an individual. This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Host et al., 2016; Stanga, 2009) among older adults. In addition to ageing, older adults are more likely to be living with one or more non-communicable chronic diseases (Shlisky et al., 2017). These diseases can independently influence or be influenced by nutritional status (Shlisky et al., 2017; Slawson et al., 2013; Stanga, 2009; Tittikpina et al., 2019).

A nutritional vulnerability can be described as a reduced physical reserve of energy and protein that limits an individual’s ability to recover sufficiently from an acute health threat (Starr et al., 2015). The term malnutrition describes a state of under or over nutrition of energy, protein and/or micronutrients (Cederholm et al., 2017). This state may be caused by reduced food and nutrient intake and/or assimilation of nutrients from the digestive system and/or inflammatory mechanisms associated with acute and chronic disease (Cederholm et al., 2019).

A failure to identify malnutrition in the continuum of older adult care, particularly transitions from hospital to community settings, has been described to increase the risk of nutrition vulnerability (Starr et al., 2015). The Nutrition Care Process Model (NCPM) has been adapted by national dietetic associations and implemented within healthcare organisations to provide a standardised process, terminology and dietetic outcome frameworks toward person-centered nutrition care and outcomes management (Swan et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2019). Screening is described as the first step to identify “at risk” of malnutrition status with the use of a validated malnutrition screening tool. This process serves to identify those who require targeted assessment and nutrition interventions (Cederholm et al., 2019; Swan et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2019)

Malnutrition is linked with aging-related disease and is a significant cause for hospitalisation among older adults (Hong et al., 2019; Tittikpina et al., 2019). In particular, malnutrition plays a role in the development and progression of frailty and sarcopenia (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2017). Research demonstrates that older adults are frequent users of emergency departments (ED), accounting for up to one quarter of all ED attendees (Morley et al., 2018; Roe et al., 2018; van Tiel et al., 2015). We have previously reported finding over a third of non-acute older adults admitted and subsequently discharged from ED to be at risk of malnutrition or malnourished when screened with the Mini Nutritional Assessment – Short Form (MNA-SF) tool (Griffin et al., 2020). However, nutrition screening is not routinely performed in ED even when mandated by clinical guidelines due to perceived demands on nursing time to perform the screening, different priorities relating to patient flow, and individual barriers relating to practitioners’ competency (Dent et al., 2019; Kirk & Nilsen, 2016; Vivanti et al., 2015). Therefore, there are missed opportunities to initiate integrated care pathways to ameliorate nutrition vulnerability (Starr et al., 2015; Umegaki et al., 2017; Vivanti et al., 2015).

The purpose of this proposed scoping review is to identify the extent of nutrition care provided to older adults attending and subsequently discharged from ED. This information will be used to inform a foundational concept of nutrition care according to the NCPM in an ED setting and allow the future examination of nutrition care pathways, practice, policy, and research within models of integrated care for older adults. The research question for this scoping review is:

What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments?

An initial search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted and there were no current or underway systematic reviews or scoping reviews and few empirical research articles on the topic identified. A preliminary Google search found articles reported in healthcare professional journals, reports, and websites. Therefore, a scoping review has been chosen to explore the breadth of grey and published literature to provide a holistic synthesis of evidence and identify research gaps and focus for future studies.

Methods

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the report (Tricco et al., 2018). As this is a scoping review it will be designed to explore the breadth and depth of the literature represented as a tabular map that summarises the evidence and activity related to nutrition care in the ED among older adults (Cooper, 2016; Tricco et al., 2016).

The research question was identified and the stated objectives refined from the preliminary searches and consultation with academic colleagues (RG, MCC) engaged in the exploration of the roles of dedicated health and social care professionals in the care of older adults in the ED (Cassarino et al., 2019; Conneely et al., 2021; O'Shaughnessy et al., 2019) and registered dietitians (SB, LR) engaged in the service provision of nutrition care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams. The following objectives were developed to guide the scoping review:

1. To explore current screening practices and tools used to identify malnutrition risk among older adults who present to ED and up to 72-hours upon discharge to home.
2. To map the current levels of nutrition and dietetic care provided to older adults who present to ED and up to 72-hours upon discharge to home.
3. To describe the pathways of nutrition care initiated on identification of (risk of) malnutrition for older adults discharged from the ED.

Eligibility criteria

The mnemonic PCC (population, concept, and context) was adopted to guide the development of the inclusion criteria, search terms and strategy for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020).

Population

Older male and female adults (those aged ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments.

Concept

The phenomena of interest are nutrition focused screening and subsequent level of nutrition care provided to manage malnutrition initiated from an ED setting. The nutrition screening may be conducted independently or as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment. The nutrition screening can be carried out by any member of the ED multidisciplinary team (MDT). Subsequent nutrition care must be initiated at presentation to the ED, during the stay in the ED index visit or up to 72 hours post ED discharge.

Context

The search will be limited to publications describing nutrition screening, assessment, diagnosis, nutrition interventions, monitoring and/or evaluation in ED settings within the last 10 years to ensure currency to present day. Studies will be confined to those from developed countries. Studies that evaluate any nutrition intervention will be included. Medication studies will be excluded.

Inclusion criteria

Literature published in last 10 years (2011–2021).
Grey literature including studies, reports and published articles that focus on nutrition assessment tools to measure nutrition status and intervention among older adults (65+ years) in the ED.
Articles published in any language.
Studies that report on nutrition screening and subsequent nutrition care by any MDT member or a qualified registered dietitian/clinical nutritionist.
Review articles including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and rapid reviews; quantitative studies (observational and experimental), qualitative and mixed method studies, and clinical care guidelines.
Grey literature defined as “that which is produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats, but which is not controlled by commercial publishers” (Frederiksen, 2008).

Exclusion criteria:

Articles published before January 2011.
Articles focusing on ages less than 65 years admitted in the ED.
Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.

Search strategy

The search strategy for this scoping review was developed in collaboration with a specialist librarian (LD) who carried out an initial search (Table 1). The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished studies and will be iterative through three steps:

Table 1. Search terms of inclusion criteria according to PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic (Peters et al., 2020).

Database search terms

Participants:

older adults or elderly or geriatric or geriatrics or aging or senior or seniors or older people or aged
65 or 65+ or retired

Concept:

nutrition screen* or malnutrition or nutritional status or nutrition assess*

Context:

emergency department or emergency room or accident and emergency or accident & emergency
or a&e or a & e or Casualty department or triage in the emergency department or triage or triage
system or trauma cent* or emergency services or A & E or A&E

1. An initial limited search of CINAHL was undertaken to identify articles on the topic (see Extended data (Griffin, 2021)). The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles will be used to develop a full search strategy with the input of a specialist health sciences librarian (LD).
2. The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included database and/or information source. Two researchers (AG, LD) will search electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Pubmed, CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources (DART-Europe E-theses portal, Open Grey, and Trip Medical database) and website searches (Google, Google Scholar, NICE and LENUS) for relevant professional and organisational developed policy, practice and guidelines.
3. The reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al., 2016; Piasecki et al., 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set. As the search for scoping reviews is an iterative process as researchers become more familiar with the evidence and identify additional keywords, sources, and search terms the entire search strategy and results will be reported in detail with the published review.

Evidence selection

Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into EndNote X8 and duplicates removed. The screening process will be carried out using Rayyan open access screening software (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Study selection will begin with screening of titles and abstracts by two reviewers (AG, CS and RG), independently, using the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The screening process will be pilot tested on a random sample of 25 titles and abstracts. Subsequently, the full text of selected citations will be assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers (AG and CS). Reasons for exclusion of sources of evidence at full text that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the scoping review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion, or with an additional reviewer (RG or MC). The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram (Tricco et al., 2018).

Data extraction

An adapted data extraction tool from the template provided by the JBI methodology guidance for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020a) will be used for collation. The data extracted will include specific details about the participants, concept, context, article type, country, and study methods as relevant. A draft extraction form is provided (Table 2). The draft data extraction form will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source. As part of this process one reviewer will independently chart the data from the retrieved articles (CS). The second reviewer (AG) will check a sample of 20% of the charted data. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with additional reviewers (RG or MC). If appropriate, authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required. Subsequent modifications will be detailed in the scoping review. Data charting will be conducted using Microsoft Excel Version 2111.

Table 2. Adapted data charting form from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020a).

Scoping review details

Scoping review title

Scoping review objectives

Scoping review questions

Inclusion/Exclusion criteria

Participants

Concept

Context

Type of evidence source

Evidence Source Details and Characteristics

Citation details (author(s), date, title, journal, volume, issue)

Country

Context (admitted to ED or discharged home from ED (up to 72 hours), length of ED stay, etc.)

Participants (details of age/sex and number)

Details/Results extracted from source of evidence (in relation to the concept of the scoping review)

Nutrition screening (completed (Y/N), tool used, independent/part of CGA, role of healthcare professional completing screening)

Nutrition assessment (completed (Y/N), detail of assessment (assessment tool/clinical exam/etc.), independent/part of CGA, MDT
member completing assessment)

Nutrition diagnosis (description, use of standardised language (Y/N), documentation in health care record)

Nutrition intervention (description including prescription of oral nutritional supplements, etc.)

Nutrition monitoring and evaluation (frequency, responsibility, etc.)

Referral to/from care pathways supporting transitionary nutrition care for older adults

Abbreviations Legend. ED, emergency department; Y/N, yes/no; CGA, comprehensive geriatric assessment; MDT, multidisciplinary team.

Key findings relevant to the review question and objectives will describe data according to the steps of the NCPM and subsequent referral for nutrition care follow-up (Table 2).

A critical appraisal of methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies is not applicable as the purpose of this scoping review is to describe current practices in malnutrition screening among older adults attending and subsequently discharged from an ED and to map the levels of nutrition care from data that spans the evidence hierarchy (Peters et al., 2020).

Data analysis and presentation

Data analysis will be conducted using SPSS Version 24. The data will be presented in tabular form and will include basic descriptive analysis (i.e. frequency counts of concepts, population, etc.). Qualitative data gathered will also be presented as a descriptive narrative and it is beyond the remit of a scoping review to perform a thematic analysis (Peters et al., 2020). However, basic coding of data will be performed to identify and map the steps (Screening, Assessment, Diagnosis, Monitoring and Evaluation) of the Nutrition Care Process (Harfield et al., 2018; Swan et al., 2017; Swan et al., 2019). A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated results and will describe how the results relate to the research question and objectives.

Dissemination

We intend to disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting. We will also present our findings to a stakeholder panel of older adults for health services research to gain their insight and input to follow on research in this area including but not limited to prospective study to explore the development of integrated nutrition care pathways from the ED.

Study status

This protocol has been finalised by the research team and was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework on 07/01/2022 (see Extended data (Griffin, 2021). At the time of publication, initial searches of databases have commenced.

Discussion

The purpose of this proposed scoping review is to identify and map the level of nutrition care provided to non-urgent older adults attending emergency departments. ED discharge is a transitionary time of care when nutritional vulnerability could be mitigated with the instigation of targeted nutrition care pathways. This information will be used to inform a foundational concept of nutrition care according to the Nutrition Care Process in an ED setting and allow the future examination of nutrition care pathways, practice, policy, and research within models of integrated care for older persons.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CXARF (Griffin, 2021).

This project contains the following extended data:

- Search Strategy Scoping review Nutrition Care in ED.pdf
- PRISMA-ScR-Fillable-Checklist_10Sept2019 ED Nutrition Care Protocol.docx
- ED Plus Nutrition Care Scoping Review protocol - HRB Open.pdf

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Ciara Pender, Clinical Specialist Dietitian for Frailty Intervention Team Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and member of the Irish Nutrition & Dietetic Institute, Older Person Nutrition Interest Group (OPNIG) Chair, Ireland for her professional opinion and consultation in developing the research question and objectives.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, et al.: Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cassarino M, Robinson K, Quinn R, et al.: Impact of early assessment and intervention by teams involving health and social care professionals in the emergency department: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019; 14(7): e0220709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al.: ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2017; 36(1): 49–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia MITD, et al.: GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition - A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Clin Nutr. 2019; 38(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Conneely M, Robinson K, Leahy S, et al.: Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2021; 3: 27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cooper ID: What is a "mapping study?". J Med Libr Assoc. 2016; 104(1): 76–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Kiesswetter E, Drey M, et al.: Nutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017; 29(1): 43–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Dent E, Hoogendijk EO, Visvanathan R, et al.: Malnutrition screening and assessment in hospitalised older people: a review. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019; 23(5): 431–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Frederiksen L: Grey Literature Report. Reference Reviews. 2008. Reference Source
Griffin A: Nutrition care in emergency departments. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FCQSY
Griffin A, O’Neill A, O’Connor M, et al.: 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): 455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Harfield SG, Davy C, McArthur A, et al.: Characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Global Health. 2018; 14(1): 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Hong X, Yan J, Xu L, et al.: Relationship between nutritional status and frailty in hospitalized older patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2019; 14: 105–111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Host A, McMahon AT, Walton K, et al.: Factors influencing food choice for independently living older people-a systematic literature review. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. 2016; 35(2): 67–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Kirk JW, Nilsen P: Implementing evidence‐based practices in an emergency department: contradictions exposed when prioritising a flow culture. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 25(3–4): 555–565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, et al.: Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8): e0203316. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
O'Shaughnessy Í, White S, Smalle E, et al.: 106 Optimising Early Assessment and Intervention by Health and Social Care Professions in the ED: Preliminary Findings from the OPTIMEND RCT. Age and Ageing. 2019; 48(Supplement_3): iii1–iii16. Publisher Full Text
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al.: Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020a. Reference Source
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V: Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(2): 809–810. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Roe L, Thomas S, Trépel D, et al.: Trends in healthcare cover and healthcare use for older adults in Ireland during the austerity years of 2009-2016. Dublin: The Irish Longidudinal Study on Ageing. 2018.
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. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Slawson DL, Fitzgerald N, Morgan KT: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: the role of nutrition in health promotion and chronic disease prevention. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113(7): 972–979. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Stanga Z: Basics in clinical nutrition: Nutrition in the elderly. e-SPEN, the European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 2009; 6(4): e289–e299. Publisher Full Text
Starr KNP, McDonald SR, Bales CW: Nutritional Vulnerability in Older Adults: A Continuum of Concerns. Curr Nutr Rep. 2015; 4(2): 176–184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
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. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019; 119(5): 840–855. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Swan WI, Vivanti A, Hakel-Smith NA, et al.: Nutrition care process and model update: toward realizing people-centered care and outcomes management. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017; 117(12): 2003–2014. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tittikpina NK, Issa Ar, Yerima M, et al.: Aging and nutrition: Theories, consequences, and impact of nutrients. Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2019; 5(4): 232–243. Publisher Full Text
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16(1): 15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Umegaki H, Asai A, Kanda S, et al.: Factors associated with unexpected admissions and mortality among low-functioning older patients receiving home medical care. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017; 17(10): 1623–1627. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
van Tiel S, Rood PP, Bertoli-Avella AM, et al.: Systematic review of frequent users of emergency departments in non-US hospitals: state of the art. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015; 22(5): 306–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
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): 180–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jan 2022

Author details Author details

Sarier Cerenay
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lorna Ryan
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Mairéad Conneely
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Sheila Bowers
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Liz Dore
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rose Galvin
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This scoping article is funded by Seed Funding awarded by the Faculty for Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick. The funders have had no influence in the development of the research question or methodological approach reported in this protocol.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 31 Aug 2022, 5:7

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.2

version 1

Published: 18 Jan 2022, 5:7

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.1

© 2022 Griffin A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

646

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Griffin A, Cerenay S, Ryan L et al. What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2022, 5:7 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13485.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2022

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Sep 2022

Adrienne M Young, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Centre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14871.r32753

The authors have adequately ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Sep 2022

Clare A. Corish, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14871.r32754

No ... Continue reading

No further comments.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: I have a long-standing commitment to nutrition research activities, particularly in disease-related malnutrition/malnutrition in the older adult with research funding in this area from the Irish Health Service Executive, the Food Safety Promotion Board, safefood, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the Health Research Board. I have been workpackage co-lead on a large EU project investigating malnutrition in older adults (the Malnutrition in the Elderly Knowledge Hub). I am currently the national principal investigator on a large EU grant developing a dietary intervention to improve appetite in older adults at risk of malnutrition and have recently completed an Irish Health Research Board-funded project on the management of malnutrition in primary care. I was a member of the Irish Department of Health Guideline Development Group for the National Clinical Guideline 22, Nutrition screening and use of oral nutrition support for adults in the acute care setting in 2020, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Public Health Nutrition sub-committee that developed the Scientific Recommendations for Food-based Dietary Guidelines for Older Adults in Ireland in 2021.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 18 Jan 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 25 Jul 2022

Clare A. Corish, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14703.r32398

The proposed scoping review aims to identify the extent of nutrition care provided to older adults attending and subsequently discharged from emergency departments i.e., those not admitted directly from the emergency department into hospital. Nutrition is a modifiable factor for healthy ageing. Those who are malnourished have a lower quality of life, a greater need for healthcare, and are at the highest risk for frailty. Given the number of older adults who present, the emergency department provides an opportunistic setting to provide multidisciplinary malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line interventions to manage malnutrition. This scoping review is timely, the methods used are clearly described and the results will be useful to inform healthcare practice both nationally and internationally. The review is broad, intended to capture grey as well as published literature, given the results of initial literature searches.

I have one query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. To my mind, these are quite different age categories. If the age is specified as >65 years, all in the population being investigated are aged 65 years and over. In contrast, a population with a mean age of >65 years could include people aged in their 50s if a proportion of the population is aged from 90-100+ years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

In summary, this is a well-considered and written protocol for a valuable scoping review that is intended to inform nutrition care pathways into the integrated care of older adults. I look forward to its publication.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

31 Aug 2022

Author Response

Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have ... Continue reading Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly as described below:

Point 1: Query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

Our Response: Thank you for your observation. We have amended the protocol to specify an age of > 65 years as our population of interest.

Action: Pg. 6 & 7 - Two instances (section Eligibility Criteria describing “Population” and “Exclusion Criteria”) of text referring to “mean age” have been amended to clarify “age >65 years”.

Point 2: I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

Our Response: Thank you for spotting this oversight on our behalf. We agree that the multidisciplinary team is essential to empower optimal nutrition care to older adults.

Action: Pg. 10 - The text has been amended to state: “We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.”

Kind regards,
Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author.
Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly as described below:

Point 1: Query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

Our Response: Thank you for your observation. We have amended the protocol to specify an age of > 65 years as our population of interest.

Action: Pg. 6 & 7 - Two instances (section Eligibility Criteria describing “Population” and “Exclusion Criteria”) of text referring to “mean age” have been amended to clarify “age >65 years”.

Point 2: I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

Our Response: Thank you for spotting this oversight on our behalf. We agree that the multidisciplinary team is essential to empower optimal nutrition care to older adults.

Action: Pg. 10 - The text has been amended to state: “We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.”

Kind regards,
Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

31 Aug 2022

Author Response

Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have ... Continue reading Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly as described below:

Point 1: Query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

Our Response: Thank you for your observation. We have amended the protocol to specify an age of > 65 years as our population of interest.

Action: Pg. 6 & 7 - Two instances (section Eligibility Criteria describing “Population” and “Exclusion Criteria”) of text referring to “mean age” have been amended to clarify “age >65 years”.

Point 2: I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

Our Response: Thank you for spotting this oversight on our behalf. We agree that the multidisciplinary team is essential to empower optimal nutrition care to older adults.

Action: Pg. 10 - The text has been amended to state: “We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.”

Kind regards,
Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author.
Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly as described below:

Point 1: Query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

Our Response: Thank you for your observation. We have amended the protocol to specify an age of > 65 years as our population of interest.

Action: Pg. 6 & 7 - Two instances (section Eligibility Criteria describing “Population” and “Exclusion Criteria”) of text referring to “mean age” have been amended to clarify “age >65 years”.

Point 2: I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

Our Response: Thank you for spotting this oversight on our behalf. We agree that the multidisciplinary team is essential to empower optimal nutrition care to older adults.

Action: Pg. 10 - The text has been amended to state: “We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.”

Kind regards,
Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Apr 2022

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14703.r31843

Thank you for this review which will be helpful for health professionals and researchers alike.

The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments." To this point, I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

The protocol is well written. I noted only 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

All the best for completing your review.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Malnutrition, hospital nutrition care, health services research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

31 Aug 2022

Author Response

Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have ... Continue reading Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly. This is now described below.

Point 1: The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

Our Response: Thank you, we have considered this observation and agree that extracting patient outcomes is not required of a scoping review. Additionally, the stated objectives of the current study are to explore, map and describe nutrition care pathways initiated in the ED setting. Follow-up of patient outcomes is beyond the remit of these objectives and, indeed, is not carried out in reality from ED settings.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the line: “We are not primarily interested in patient outcomes for this review but will chart these as a secondary finding.” From the section describing the development of inclusion criteria.

Point 2: The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments."

Our Response: Thank you, we have amended the sentence as you kindly suggested.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the words “up to 72 hours post discharge to include early discharge planning phase” from the section titled ‘Population’.

Point 3: I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

Our Response: Thank you, having subsequently screened a number of articles, we concur that nutrition screening is often not initiated until hospital ward admission.

Action: Pg. 7 - “Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.” Has been added to the exclusion criteria.

Point 4: The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

Our Response: Thank you for the comment. We found a lack of clear guidance on the management of Google searches in literature reviews. Based on the available information, our interpretation, taking a pragmatic approach to ensure the inclusion of health service policies and guidelines that are often not peer-reviewed we now describe our chosen method in more detail.

Action: Pg. 8 - The following text with supporting references has been inserted to point 3 of the section ‘Search Strategy’: “As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al. 2016; Piasecki et al. 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set.”

References to add to list - Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J. et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5, 164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):809-810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4. Epub 2017 Dec 16. PMID: 29249022; PMCID: PMC5876410.

Point 5: 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

Our Response: Thank you for spotting these typos and errors.

Action: Pg. 5 - We have corrected MNS-SF to read MNA-SF. We have amended the second sentence in the introduction as suggested.

Pg. 4 - It now reads “This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Stanga 2009; Host et al. 2016) among older adults. “

Kind regards,
Dr Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author
Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly. This is now described below.

Point 1: The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

Our Response: Thank you, we have considered this observation and agree that extracting patient outcomes is not required of a scoping review. Additionally, the stated objectives of the current study are to explore, map and describe nutrition care pathways initiated in the ED setting. Follow-up of patient outcomes is beyond the remit of these objectives and, indeed, is not carried out in reality from ED settings.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the line: “We are not primarily interested in patient outcomes for this review but will chart these as a secondary finding.” From the section describing the development of inclusion criteria.

Point 2: The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments."

Our Response: Thank you, we have amended the sentence as you kindly suggested.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the words “up to 72 hours post discharge to include early discharge planning phase” from the section titled ‘Population’.

Point 3: I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

Our Response: Thank you, having subsequently screened a number of articles, we concur that nutrition screening is often not initiated until hospital ward admission.

Action: Pg. 7 - “Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.” Has been added to the exclusion criteria.

Point 4: The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

Our Response: Thank you for the comment. We found a lack of clear guidance on the management of Google searches in literature reviews. Based on the available information, our interpretation, taking a pragmatic approach to ensure the inclusion of health service policies and guidelines that are often not peer-reviewed we now describe our chosen method in more detail.

Action: Pg. 8 - The following text with supporting references has been inserted to point 3 of the section ‘Search Strategy’: “As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al. 2016; Piasecki et al. 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set.”

References to add to list - Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J. et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5, 164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):809-810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4. Epub 2017 Dec 16. PMID: 29249022; PMCID: PMC5876410.

Point 5: 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

Our Response: Thank you for spotting these typos and errors.

Action: Pg. 5 - We have corrected MNS-SF to read MNA-SF. We have amended the second sentence in the introduction as suggested.

Pg. 4 - It now reads “This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Stanga 2009; Host et al. 2016) among older adults. “

Kind regards,
Dr Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

31 Aug 2022

Author Response

Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have ... Continue reading Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly. This is now described below.

Point 1: The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

Our Response: Thank you, we have considered this observation and agree that extracting patient outcomes is not required of a scoping review. Additionally, the stated objectives of the current study are to explore, map and describe nutrition care pathways initiated in the ED setting. Follow-up of patient outcomes is beyond the remit of these objectives and, indeed, is not carried out in reality from ED settings.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the line: “We are not primarily interested in patient outcomes for this review but will chart these as a secondary finding.” From the section describing the development of inclusion criteria.

Point 2: The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments."

Our Response: Thank you, we have amended the sentence as you kindly suggested.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the words “up to 72 hours post discharge to include early discharge planning phase” from the section titled ‘Population’.

Point 3: I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

Our Response: Thank you, having subsequently screened a number of articles, we concur that nutrition screening is often not initiated until hospital ward admission.

Action: Pg. 7 - “Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.” Has been added to the exclusion criteria.

Point 4: The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

Our Response: Thank you for the comment. We found a lack of clear guidance on the management of Google searches in literature reviews. Based on the available information, our interpretation, taking a pragmatic approach to ensure the inclusion of health service policies and guidelines that are often not peer-reviewed we now describe our chosen method in more detail.

Action: Pg. 8 - The following text with supporting references has been inserted to point 3 of the section ‘Search Strategy’: “As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al. 2016; Piasecki et al. 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set.”

References to add to list - Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J. et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5, 164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):809-810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4. Epub 2017 Dec 16. PMID: 29249022; PMCID: PMC5876410.

Point 5: 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

Our Response: Thank you for spotting these typos and errors.

Action: Pg. 5 - We have corrected MNS-SF to read MNA-SF. We have amended the second sentence in the introduction as suggested.

Pg. 4 - It now reads “This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Stanga 2009; Host et al. 2016) among older adults. “

Kind regards,
Dr Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author
Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly. This is now described below.

Point 1: The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

Our Response: Thank you, we have considered this observation and agree that extracting patient outcomes is not required of a scoping review. Additionally, the stated objectives of the current study are to explore, map and describe nutrition care pathways initiated in the ED setting. Follow-up of patient outcomes is beyond the remit of these objectives and, indeed, is not carried out in reality from ED settings.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the line: “We are not primarily interested in patient outcomes for this review but will chart these as a secondary finding.” From the section describing the development of inclusion criteria.

Point 2: The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments."

Our Response: Thank you, we have amended the sentence as you kindly suggested.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the words “up to 72 hours post discharge to include early discharge planning phase” from the section titled ‘Population’.

Point 3: I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

Our Response: Thank you, having subsequently screened a number of articles, we concur that nutrition screening is often not initiated until hospital ward admission.

Action: Pg. 7 - “Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.” Has been added to the exclusion criteria.

Point 4: The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

Our Response: Thank you for the comment. We found a lack of clear guidance on the management of Google searches in literature reviews. Based on the available information, our interpretation, taking a pragmatic approach to ensure the inclusion of health service policies and guidelines that are often not peer-reviewed we now describe our chosen method in more detail.

Action: Pg. 8 - The following text with supporting references has been inserted to point 3 of the section ‘Search Strategy’: “As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al. 2016; Piasecki et al. 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set.”

References to add to list - Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J. et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5, 164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):809-810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4. Epub 2017 Dec 16. PMID: 29249022; PMCID: PMC5876410.

Point 5: 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

Our Response: Thank you for spotting these typos and errors.

Action: Pg. 5 - We have corrected MNS-SF to read MNA-SF. We have amended the second sentence in the introduction as suggested.

Pg. 4 - It now reads “This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Stanga 2009; Host et al. 2016) among older adults. “

Kind regards,
Dr Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jan 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 31 Aug 22	read	read
Version 1 18 Jan 22	read	read

Adrienne M Young, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Clare A. Corish, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

08 Sep 2022 | for Version 2

9 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have adequately addressed the previous feedback provided.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Malnutrition, hospital nutrition care, health services research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

01 Sep 2022 | for Version 2

Clare A. Corish, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I have a long-standing commitment to nutrition research activities, particularly in disease-related malnutrition/malnutrition in the older adult with research funding in this area from the Irish Health Service Executive, the Food Safety Promotion Board, safefood, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the Health Research Board. I have been workpackage co-lead on a large EU project investigating malnutrition in older adults (the Malnutrition in the Elderly Knowledge Hub). I am currently the national principal investigator on a large EU grant developing a dietary intervention to improve appetite in older adults at risk of malnutrition and have recently completed an Irish Health Research Board-funded project on the management of malnutrition in primary care. I was a member of the Irish Department of Health Guideline Development Group for the National Clinical Guideline 22, Nutrition screening and use of oral nutrition support for adults in the acute care setting in 2020, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Public Health Nutrition sub-committee that developed the Scientific Recommendations for Food-based Dietary Guidelines for Older Adults in Ireland in 2021.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

25 Jul 2022 | for Version 1

Clare A. Corish, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

22 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Thank you, Professor Corish for your time in reviewing our paper. We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes.

We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly as described below:

Point 1: Query relating to the inclusion criteria. In some places, an age of >65 years is specified and in other places, a mean age of >65 years. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify precisely how they are categorising the study population and that consistent categorisation is used.

Our Response: Thank you for your observation. We have amended the protocol to specify an age of > 65 years as our population of interest.

Action: Pg. 6 & 7 - Two instances (section Eligibility Criteria describing “Population” and “Exclusion Criteria”) of text referring to “mean age” have been amended to clarify “age >65 years”.

Point 2: I would also like to see dissemination/presentation of the research findings to the wider multidisciplinary team and not solely to dietitians, particularly if the anticipated follow on from the scoping review is to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.

Our Response: Thank you for spotting this oversight on our behalf. We agree that the multidisciplinary team is essential to empower optimal nutrition care to older adults.

Action: Pg. 10 - The text has been amended to state: “We will present our findings to healthcare professionals engaged in the service provision of care for older adults in acute and frailty intervention teams to engage stakeholders to establish a process for malnutrition screening, assessment, and first-line intervention in the emergency department setting.”

Kind regards,
Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

26 Apr 2022 | for Version 1

20 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Malnutrition, hospital nutrition care, health services research

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

31 Aug 2022

Anne Griffin, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

Thank you, Professor Young for your time in reviewing our paper.

We appreciate all of your comments and suggested changes. We have addressed each of the points you have raised and amended the paper accordingly. This is now described below.

Point 1: The scoping review method is appropriate and well justified. The authors mention extracting the patient outcomes on p4 as a secondary finding, which is not typical for a scoping review and is not justified or described further. I would encourage the authors to consider if this fits within the scope of a scoping review, and if to be included this should be explained more fully and included in the data extraction form (i.e. Table 2).

Our Response: Thank you, we have considered this observation and agree that extracting patient outcomes is not required of a scoping review. Additionally, the stated objectives of the current study are to explore, map and describe nutrition care pathways initiated in the ED setting. Follow-up of patient outcomes is beyond the remit of these objectives and, indeed, is not carried out in reality from ED settings.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the line: “We are not primarily interested in patient outcomes for this review but will chart these as a secondary finding.” From the section describing the development of inclusion criteria.

Point 2: The eligibility criteria are well described, however, the nutrition care at 72 hours is probably not relevant under the population as it is well covered under the concept. I would write the population as "Older male and female adults (those with a mean age ≥65 years) who present to the ED and are subsequently discharged from emergency departments."

Our Response: Thank you, we have amended the sentence as you kindly suggested.

Action: Pg. 6 - We have deleted the words “up to 72 hours post discharge to include early discharge planning phase” from the section titled ‘Population’.

Point 3: I wonder if "admitted to hospital from ED" should be included as part of the exclusion criteria. This is stated in the population, but I imagine that there are many studies that look at nutrition care across the continuum of care from ED to the hospital ward.

Our Response: Thank you, having subsequently screened a number of articles, we concur that nutrition screening is often not initiated until hospital ward admission.

Action: Pg. 7 - “Articles in which nutrition care is initiated on a hospital ward and not in the ED.” Has been added to the exclusion criteria.

Point 4: The inclusion of grey literature is justified, however, a description of how Google searches will be managed should be included, e.g. how many pages/hits will be screened? Will you use any limiters (e.g. .gov.uk, etc).

Our Response: Thank you for the comment. We found a lack of clear guidance on the management of Google searches in literature reviews. Based on the available information, our interpretation, taking a pragmatic approach to ensure the inclusion of health service policies and guidelines that are often not peer-reviewed we now describe our chosen method in more detail.

Action: Pg. 8 - The following text with supporting references has been inserted to point 3 of the section ‘Search Strategy’: “As internet searching using Google.com displays results listed by relevance for the given search terms (Adams et al. 2016; Piasecki et al. 2018), the first 20 results yielded by the search string will be reviewed. A custom range on the last ten years (2011 to 2021) will be the only limiter set.”

References to add to list - Adams, J., Hillier-Brown, F.C., Moore, H.J. et al. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5, 164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V. Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):809-810. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0010-4. Epub 2017 Dec 16. PMID: 29249022; PMCID: PMC5876410.

Point 5: 2 typos/errors: "MNA-SF" is written as "MNS-SF"; and the second sentence in the introduction is a little hard to read (maybe better written as "This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. ...), psychosocial factors (e.g. ...), and personal resources (e.g. ...)".

Our Response: Thank you for spotting these typos and errors.

Action: Pg. 5 - We have corrected MNS-SF to read MNA-SF. We have amended the second sentence in the introduction as suggested.

Pg. 4 - It now reads “This can occur due to physiological factors (e.g. taste changes, poor dentition, loss of appetite, mobility and functional limitations), psychosocial factors (e.g. life course, food ideals and preferences, grief and bereavement), and personal resources (e.g. transport, disposable income, social supports) that influence food choice and intake (Stanga 2009; Host et al. 2016) among older adults. “

Kind regards,
Dr Anne Griffin,
Corresponding author

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, et al.: Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] Cassarino M, Robinson K, Quinn R, et al.: Impact of early assessment and intervention by teams involving health and social care professionals in the emergency department: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2019; 14(7): e0220709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, et al.: ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2017; 36(1): 49–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] Cederholm T, Jensen GL, Correia MITD, et al.: GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition - A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Clin Nutr. 2019; 38(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Conneely M, Robinson K, Leahy S, et al.: Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2021; 3: 27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] Cooper ID: What is a "mapping study?". J Med Libr Assoc. 2016; 104(1): 76–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Kiesswetter E, Drey M, et al.: Nutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017; 29(1): 43–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] Dent E, Hoogendijk EO, Visvanathan R, et al.: Malnutrition screening and assessment in hospitalised older people: a review. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019; 23(5): 431–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] Frederiksen L: Grey Literature Report. Reference Reviews. 2008. Reference Source

[10] Griffin A: Nutrition care in emergency departments. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FCQSY

[11] Griffin A, O’Neill A, O’Connor M, et al.: 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): 455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Harfield SG, Davy C, McArthur A, et al.: Characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a systematic scoping review. Global Health. 2018; 14(1): 12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] Hong X, Yan J, Xu L, et al.: Relationship between nutritional status and frailty in hospitalized older patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2019; 14: 105–111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] Host A, McMahon AT, Walton K, et al.: Factors influencing food choice for independently living older people-a systematic literature review. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. 2016; 35(2): 67–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Kirk JW, Nilsen P: Implementing evidence‐based practices in an emergency department: contradictions exposed when prioritising a flow culture. J Clin Nurs. 2016; 25(3–4): 555–565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, et al.: Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8): e0203316. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] O'Shaughnessy Í, White S, Smalle E, et al.: 106 Optimising Early Assessment and Intervention by Health and Social Care Professions in the ED: Preliminary Findings from the OPTIMEND RCT. Age and Ageing. 2019; 48(Supplement_3): iii1–iii16. Publisher Full Text

[18] Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al.: Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, JBI, 2020a. Reference Source

[20] Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–2126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Piasecki J, Waligora M, Dranseika V: Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(2): 809–810. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] Roe L, Thomas S, Trépel D, et al.: Trends in healthcare cover and healthcare use for older adults in Ireland during the austerity years of 2009-2016. Dublin: The Irish Longidudinal Study on Ageing. 2018.

[23] 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. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] Slawson DL, Fitzgerald N, Morgan KT: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: the role of nutrition in health promotion and chronic disease prevention. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113(7): 972–979. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] Stanga Z: Basics in clinical nutrition: Nutrition in the elderly. e-SPEN, the European e-Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 2009; 6(4): e289–e299. Publisher Full Text

[26] Starr KNP, McDonald SR, Bales CW: Nutritional Vulnerability in Older Adults: A Continuum of Concerns. Curr Nutr Rep. 2015; 4(2): 176–184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 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. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019; 119(5): 840–855. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] Swan WI, Vivanti A, Hakel-Smith NA, et al.: Nutrition care process and model update: toward realizing people-centered care and outcomes management. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017; 117(12): 2003–2014. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] Tittikpina NK, Issa Ar, Yerima M, et al.: Aging and nutrition: Theories, consequences, and impact of nutrients. Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2019; 5(4): 232–243. Publisher Full Text

[30] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16(1): 15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] Umegaki H, Asai A, Kanda S, et al.: Factors associated with unexpected admissions and mortality among low-functioning older patients receiving home medical care. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017; 17(10): 1623–1627. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] van Tiel S, Rood PP, Bertoli-Avella AM, et al.: Systematic review of frequent users of emergency departments in non-US hospitals: state of the art. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015; 22(5): 306–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 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): 180–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol.

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Eligibility criteria

Population

Concept

Context

Search strategy

Table 1. Search terms of inclusion criteria according to PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic (Peters et al., 2020).

Evidence selection

Data extraction

Table 2. Adapted data charting form from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020a).

Data analysis and presentation

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

What is the level of nutrition care provided to older adults attending emergency departments? A scoping review protocol.

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Eligibility criteria

Population

Concept

Context

Search strategy

Table 1. Search terms of inclusion criteria according to PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic (Peters et al., 2020).

Evidence selection

Data extraction

Table 2. Adapted data charting form from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020a).

Data analysis and presentation

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!