Cited by 115Geriatric Care and Nursing HomesDysphagia Assessment and ManagementPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Increasing Fluid Intake and Reducing Dehydration Risk in Older People Living in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review

Open access
Bunn, Diane, Jimoh, Florence, Wilsher, Stephanie Howard, Hooper, Lee·2015·Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of interventions and environmental factors on increasing fluid intake or reducing dehydration risk in older people living in long-term care facilities. DESIGN: Systematic review of intervention and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2013 in all languages. References of included papers and reviews were checked. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Intervention and observational studies investigating modifiable factors to increase fluid intake and/or reduce dehydration risk in older people (≥65 years) living in long-term care facilities who could drink orally. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened, selected, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias from included studies; narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 4328 titles and abstracts were identified, 325 full-text articles were obtained and 23 were included in the review. Nineteen intervention and 4 observational studies from 7 countries investigated factors at the resident, institutional, or policy level. Overall, the studies were at high risk of bias due to selection and attrition bias and lack of valid outcome measures of fluid intake and dehydration assessment. Reported findings from 6 of the 9 intervention studies investigating the effect of multicomponent strategies on fluid intake or dehydration described a positive effect. Components included greater choice and availability of beverages, increased staff awareness, and increased staff assistance with drinking and toileting. Implementation of the US Resident Assessment Instrument reduced dehydration prevalence from 3% to 1%, P = .01. Two smaller studies reported positive effects: one on fluid intake in 9 men with Alzheimer disease using high-contrast red cups, the other involved supplementing 13 mildly dehydrated residents with oral hydration solution over 5 days to reduce dehydration. Modifications to the dining environment, advice to residents, presentation of beverages, and mode of delivery (straw vs beaker; prethickened drinks vs those thickened at the bedside) were inconclusive. Two large observational studies with good internal validity investigated effects of ownership; in Canada, for-profit ownership was associated with increased hospital admissions for dehydration; no difference was seen in dehydration prevalence between US for-profit and not-for-profit homes, although chain facilities were associated with lower odds of dehydration. This US study did not suggest any effect of staffing levels on dehydration prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of interventions and exposures were identified, but the efficacy of many strategies remains unproven due to the high risk of bias present in many studies. Reducing dehydration prevalence in long-term care facilities is likely to require multiple strategies involving policymakers, management, and care staff, but these require further investigation using more robust study methodologies. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012003100).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.10.016

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most trials aiming to increase fluid intake in older adults assessed fluid intake, hydration status and health outcomes poorly, so success in increasing fluid intake is unclear.

    “Unfortunately, most trials assessed fluid intake hydration status and health outcomes poorly, so success in increasing fluid intake is unclear.”

    From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [220]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says most studies had considerable risk of bias and that, without 24-hour measurement, a change in overall fluid intake cannot be determined. The Risk of Bias section (page unavailable) finds fluid-intake or hydration assessment at high risk of bias in 16 of 23 studies. The copy supports uncertainty about increasing fluid intake, but does not specifically establish that most trials assessed health outcomes poorly. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The introduction of the US Resident Assessment Instrument (which requires mandatory monitoring and reporting of hydration risks) reduced dehydration in older adults.

    “It was also suggested that the introduction of the US Resident Assessment Instrument (which requires mandatory monitoring and reporting of hydration risks) reduced dehydration in older adults(220, 261).”

    From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [220]

    The RAI-MDS section (page unavailable) reports that dehydration prevalence in US nursing-home residents fell from 3% to 1% after compulsory implementation, supporting the suggested reduction. It does not say that the instrument requires mandatory monitoring and reporting of hydration risks, and the finding is specific to long-term-care residents rather than older adults generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent systematic review suggested that multiple strategies including involvement and input from older adults, staff, management, and policymakers will be needed to address problems with drinking in residential care.

    “A recent systematic review (see recommendations 67, 68) suggested that multiple strategies including involvement and input from older adults, staff, management, and policymakers will be needed to address problems with drinking in residential care (220).”

    From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [220]

    The Abstract says reducing dehydration in long-term care is likely to require multiple strategies involving policymakers, management, and care staff. The Conclusion calls for work at resident, institutional, and policy levels and for person-centered approaches to drinking barriers, but it does not specifically call for older adults’ involvement and input. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Multi-component strategies across institutions to support adequate drinks intake have been clearly shown to prevent or treat low-intake dehydration in older adults.

    “multi-component strategies across their institutions for support adequate drinks intake have been clearly shown to prevent or treat low-intake dehydration in older adults.”

    From ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics (2022) · cites this paper as [220]

    The Discussion reports that 6 of 9 multicomponent interventions showed a trend toward increased fluid intake. But the Discussion and Conclusion caution that high risk of bias left the effectiveness of many strategies unproven; the review does not establish that these strategies clearly prevent or treat low-intake dehydration. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Canada, for-profit care home ownership was associated with increased hospital admissions for dehydration.

    “in Canada for-profit ownership was associated with increased hospital admissions for dehydration”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Available at: www.cochrane- handbook.org; 2008. Accessed August 15, 2012.
  2. Mentes J. Hydration management: A long-term care nursing intervention to prevent acute confusion and other hydration-linked events [dissertation]. University of Iowa; 2000. p. 201.
  3. Zembrzuski CD. Oral fluid intake and the effect on postural blood pressure and falls in skilled nursing facility residents [dissertation]. New York University; 2006. p. 176.
  4. Cleary S, Hopper T, Forseth M, et al. Using routine seating plans to improve mealtimes for residents with dementia. Can Nurs Home 2008;19:4e10.
  5. Willms S, Peinelt V, Kohl O, et al. Development of a fluid intake concept to improve the intake of beverages by aged nursing home inmates. Aktuel Ernahrungsmed 2003;28:235e239. German.
  6. Lin S. Fluid intake and bacteriuria in nursing home residents in southern Taiwan. Nurs Res 2013;62:66e72.
  7. Hooper L, Attreed N, Campbell W, et al. Clinical and physical signs for identi- fication of impending and current water-loss dehydration in older people (Protocol). Cochrane Libr. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1002/14651858.CD009647/pdf; 2012. Accessed May 25, 2014. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bunn, D., Jimoh, F., Wilsher, S. H., & Hooper, L.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Bunn, Diane
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
101-113
ISSN
1525-8610 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965597588
Cited by
115
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CDF-2011-04-025)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
dehydration, fluid intake, older adults, long-term care facilities, nursing homes, multicomponent intervention, Resident Assessment Instrument, facility ownership, staffing levels, hospitalization, Alzheimer's disease, quality of care, risk of bias, eating environment, employee awareness
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Dehydration, Drinking, Female, Homes for the Aged, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Nursing Homes, Ontario, Residential Facilities, Geriatric Assessment, Risk Assessment, Risk Reduction Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review