↓ Skip to main content

Clinical assessments and care interventions to promote oral hydration amongst older patients: a narrative systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical assessments and care interventions to promote oral hydration amongst older patients: a narrative systematic review
Published in
BMC Nursing, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0195-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lloyd L. Oates, Christopher I. Price

Abstract

Older patients in hospital may be unable to maintain hydration by drinking, leading to intravenous fluid replacement, complications and a longer length of stay. We undertook a systematic review to describe clinical assessment tools which identify patients at risk of insufficient oral fluid intake and the impact of simple interventions to promote drinking, in hospital and care home settings. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases and two internet search engines (Google and Google Scholar) were examined. Articles were included when the main focus was use of a hydration/dehydration risk assessment in an adult population with/without a care intervention to promote oral hydration in hospitals or care homes. Reviews which used findings to develop new assessments were also included. Single case reports, laboratory results only, single technology assessments or non-oral fluid replacement in patients who were already dehydrated were excluded. Interventions where nutritional intake was the primary focus with a hydration component were also excluded. Identified articles were screened for relevance and quality before a narrative synthesis. No statistical analysis was planned. From 3973 citations, 23 articles were included. Rather than prevention of poor oral intake, most focused upon identification of patients already in negative fluid balance using information from the history, patient inspection and urinalysis. Nine formal hydration assessments were identified, five of which had an accompanying intervention/ care protocol, and there were no RCT or large observational studies. Interventions to provide extra opportunities to drink such as prompts, preference elicitation and routine beverage carts appeared to support hydration maintenance, further research is required. Despite a lack of knowledge of fluid requirements and dehydration risk factors amongst staff, there was no strong evidence that increasing awareness alone would be beneficial for patients. Despite descriptions of features associated with dehydration, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific clinical assessment which could identify older persons at risk of poor oral fluid intake; however there is evidence to support simple care interventions which promote drinking particularly for individuals with cognitive impairment. PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014015178.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 184 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 14 8%
Researcher 13 7%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 64 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 57 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 66 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,179,108
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#179
of 755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,375
of 417,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.