Early intervention with nutritional support has been found to stop weight loss in older people malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Enriched food could be a more attractive alternative to improve meals, than conventional oral nutritional supplements. To determine the effectiveness of food-based fortification to prevent risk of malnutrition in elderly patients in community or institutionalized elderly patients. A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and interrupted time series including a longitudinal analysis. Elderly patients who are institutionalized, hospitalized or community-dwelling, with a minimum average age of 65 years. All type of patient groups, with the exception of people in critical care, or those who were recovering from cancer treatment, were included. Studies had to compare food-based fortification against alternatives. Studies that used oral nutritional supplementation such as commercial sip feeds, vitamin or mineral supplements were excluded. The search was conducted in Cochrane, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cuiden. An independent peer review was carried out. From 1011 studies obtained, 7 were included for the systematic review, with 588 participants. It was possible to perform meta-analysis of four studies that provided results on caloric and protein intake. Food-based fortification yielded positive results in the total amount of ingested calories and protein. Nevertheless, due to the small number of participants and the poor quality of some studies, further high quality studies are required to provide reliable evidence. Despite the limited evidence, due to their simplicity, low cost, and positive results in protein and calories intake, simple dietary interventions based on the food-based fortification or densification with protein or energy of the standard diet could be considered in patients at risk of malnutrition.

Background: Regarding the health care of older populations, WHO recommends shifting from disease-driven attention models towards a personalized, integrated and continuous care aimed to the maintenance and enhancement of functional capacities. Impairments in the construct of functional intrinsic capacity have been understood as the condition of frailty or vulnerability. No consensus has been yet reached regarding which tools are the most suitable for screening this kind of patients in primary care settings. Tools based on the measurement of functional performance such as Timed up and go test (TUG), Short Physical Performance battery (SPPB), self-completed questionnaires like Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and clinical judgement, as the Gerontopole Frailty Scale (GFS) may be adequate. The objective of this work is to describe and compare characteristics of community-dwelling individuals identified as vulnerable or frail by four tools applied in primary care settings.Methods: Cross sectional analysis developed in primary care services in two regions of Spain.Community-dwelling independent individuals aged 70 or more willing to participate were recruited and data was collected via face-to-face interviews. Frailty was assessed by TUG, SPPB, TFI and GFST. Also socio-demographic characteristics, lifestyle habits and health status data (comorbidities, polypharmacy, self-perceived health), were collected. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and cluster analysis were used to identify groups of individuals with similar characteristics.Results: Eight hundred sixty-five individuals were recruited, 53% women, with a mean age of 78 years. Four clusters of participants emerge. Cluster 1 (N = 263) contained patients categorized as robust by most of the studied tools, whereas clusters 2 (N = 199), 3 (N = 183) and 4 (N = 220) grouped patients classified as frail or vulnerable by at least one of the tools. Significant differences were found between clusters.Conclusions: The assessed tools identify different profiles of patients according to their theoretical construct of frailty. There is a group of patients that are identified by TUG and SPPB but not by GFS or TFI. These tools may be useful in primary care settings for the implementation of a function- driven clinical care of older patients.

In the last few years several indices and tools, aimed at identifying frail subjects in various care settings have been developed. However, to date none of them has been incorporated into usual practice in the primary care setting. The purposes of this study are: 1) to evaluate the predictive capacity of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), the Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST) and the KoS model together with two biomarker levels (SOX2 and p16INK4a) for adverse events related to frailty; 2) to determine differences in the use of healthcare services according to frailty. Prospective multicentre cohort study with a 2-year follow-up. The study will be performed in primary care centres of Gipuzkoa and Costa del Sol, both located in Spain. Autonomous, non-institutionalized individuals aged 70 and over that agree to participate in this study will constitute the study population. A total of 900 individuals will be randomly selected from the healthcare administrative data bases of the participating health services. Data will be collected at baseline and at 1 and 2 years. The main independent variables assessed at baseline will be TFI outcomes, GFST and the KoS model, together with the expression of SOX2 and p16INK4a levels. During follow-up, loss of autonomy, the occurrence of death and consumption of healthcare resources will be assessed. The main focus of this work is the identification and evaluation of several instruments constructed under different rationales to identify frail subjects in primary care settings. The resulting outcomes have potential for direct application to the primary care practice. Early identification of the onset of functional impairment of elderly is an essential, still unresolved aspect in the prevention of dependence in the scope of primary care.

To adapt the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia Scale (EdFED) for use in a Spanish-speaking population and to assess its validity and reliability in patients with dementia. A cross-sectional study was carried out in two stages: 1. Cross-cultural adaptation (translation, back-translation, review by committee of experts, pilot test and weighting of results); 2. Clinimetric validation comprising interobserver reliability assessment, test-retest reliability and internal consistency. To determine construct validity, confirmatory factorial analysis and principal components analysis were performed by oblique rotations. Criteria validity was analysed using the Pearson correlation (p<0.05) with the BMI, MNA and analytical values of albumin, transferrin, cholesterol, absolute lymphocytes and total proteins. Data collection was carried out for six months in 2016 in nursing homes and Alzheimer’s day centers in the province of Málaga (Spain), at nine centers, with 262 patients (aged over 60 years and presenting feeding difficulties), 20 nurses, 20 professional caregivers and 103 family caregivers. A version of EdFED culturally adapted to Spanish was obtained. The sample presented the following characteristics: 76.3% women, mean age 82.3 years (SD: 7.9); MNA 18.73 (SD: 4.44); BMI 23.99 (SD: 4.72); serum albumin 3.79 mg/dl (SD: 0.36). A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 was obtained, with an inter-item global correlation of 0.43 and a homogeneity index ranging from 0.42 to 0.73. The exploratory factor analysis reproduced the three-factor model identified by the original authors, explaining 62.32% of the total variance. The criterion validity showed a good inverse correlation with MNA and a moderate one with albumin, total proteins, transferrin and BMI. The Spanish version of EdFED is reliable and valid for use in elderly people with dementia. The most appropriate for our environment is the three-factor model, which maintains the original factors, with a slight redistribution of the items.

Aim: The aim of this study was to obtain a Spanish version of the Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia Scale version, to assess its reliability for use by medical staff and caregivers at residential care homes, to evaluate by confirmatory methods its construct validity. A further aim was to determine the criterion validity with respect to biochemical markers of malnutrition such as serum albumin, transferrin, cholesterol and lymphocytes, the body mass index and the mini nutritional assessment.Design: Clinimetric cross‐validation study.Methods: Institutionalized subjects with dementia will be observed while consuming meals and evaluated with the instrument independently by nurses and caregivers.

Background/Objectives: Patients with dementia present with feeding difficulties (FDs) since diagnosis, conditioning their progression. Early identification is vital for preventing deterioration due to nutritional problems. The Edinburgh Feeding Evaluation in Dementia Scale (EdFED) identifies the FDs of patients with dementia by studying their behaviours while eating or being fed. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the EdFED over time in older people with cognitive impairment and to compare its effectiveness in identifying malnutrition and risk with that of the gold standard Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) method. Methods: This was a multicentre, prospective, observational, longitudinal, analytic study with a follow-up period of 18 months (with patients participating in nursing homes and in the community). Sociodemographic and nutritional data (body mass index (BMI), MNA, forearm circumference (FC), calf circumference (CC), and a nutritional blood test) were collected; EdFED score was reported by nurses, nursing assistants, and family caregivers. Results: The total sample consisted of 359 individuals—60.7% residential participants and 39.3% community participants. In the last follow-up there were 149 remaining (41.5%). Malnutrition was more than 30%, and the risk was 40% at the three follow-ups. The results suggest that the EdFED scale is a useful tool for assessing feeding difficulties (FDs) in older persons with dementia. It demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity in detecting malnutrition, similar to the MNA, and, more importantly, detecting risk and also identifying changes in nutritional status over time. Conclusions: The EdFED scale provides a means of evaluating nutritional problems, making it possible to work on prevention.