↓ Skip to main content

A cross-sectional survey to investigate the quality of care in Tuscan (Italy) nursing homes: the structural, process and outcome indicators of nutritional care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
A cross-sectional survey to investigate the quality of care in Tuscan (Italy) nursing homes: the structural, process and outcome indicators of nutritional care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0881-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guglielmo Bonaccorsi, Francesca Collini, Mariangela Castagnoli, Mauro Di Bari, Maria Chiara Cavallini, Nicoletta Zaffarana, Pasquale Pepe, Alessandro Mugelli, Ersilia Lucenteforte, Alfredo Vannacci, Chiara Lorini

Abstract

Previous studies have investigated process and structure indicators of nutritional care as well as their use in nursing homes (NHs), but the relative weight of these indicators in predicting the risk of malnutrition remains unclear. Aims of the present study are to describe the quality indicators of nutritional care in older residents in a sample of NHs in Tuscany, Italy, and to evaluate the predictors of protein-energy malnutrition risk. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 67 NHs. Information was collected to evaluate quality indicators of nutritional care and the individual risk factors for malnutrition, which was assessed using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool. A multilevel model was used to analyse the association between risk and predictors. Out of 2395 participants, 23.7 % were at high, 11 % at medium, and 65.3 % at low risk for malnutrition. Forty-two percent of the NHs had only a personal scale to weigh residents; 88 % did not routinely use a screening test/tool for malnutrition; 60 % used some standardized approach for weight measurement; 43 % did not assess the severity of dysphagia; 12 % were not staffed with dietitians. Patients living in NHs where a chair or platform scale was available had a significantly lower risk of malnutrition (OR = 0.73; 95 % CI = 0.56-0.94). None of the other structural or process quality indicators showed a statistically significant association with malnutrition risk. Of all the process and structural indicators considered, only the absence of an adequate scale to weigh residents predicted the risk of malnutrition, after adjusting for case mix. These findings prompt the conduction of further investigations on the effectiveness of structural and process indicators that are used to describe quality of nutritional care in NHs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Other 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 26%
Engineering 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#10,995,338
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,791
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,593
of 236,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#150
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 236,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.