Introduction: Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in older inpatients. However, it is unclear if sarcopenia is documented routinely in geriatric rehabilitation. This study aimed to investigate the documentation of sarcopenia in medical records among geriatric rehabilitation patients. Methods: Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients in a statewide hospital in VIC, Australia, were included. Patient characteristics, muscle measurements, and medical records at admission and discharge were collected. Sarcopenia was defined using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2). Patient characteristics were compared between the groups with documented and non-documented sarcopenia using the Wilcoxon rank-sum or chi-square test. Results: Of 1,890 geriatric rehabilitation inpatients (aged 83.4 [interquartile range: 77.6–88.4] years, 56.3% female), muscle measurements were available in 1,334 patients at admission. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 20.8% (n = 278). Sarcopenia was documented in 68 out of 1,890 patients; 23 of them did not have muscle mass or muscle strength measured. Forty-five patients with muscle measurements available were documented with sarcopenia either at discharge from acute admissions (n = 9), on rehabilitation admission (n = 25), or at discharge from rehabilitation (n = 26). Of these 45 patients, 8 patients had sarcopenia following the EWGSOP2 criteria. Compared with patients without sarcopenia documented, patients documented with sarcopenia had lower body mass index and sarcopenia screening (Strength, Assistance in Walking, Rise from a Chair, Climb Stairs, Falls History [SARC-F]) scores and higher Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores and were likely to come from nursing homes. Conclusions: Documentation of sarcopenia was lower than the prevalence of sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. Sarcopenia was incorrectly documented as data on muscle measurement were missing to define sarcopenia. Practitioners likely used clinical impressions to document sarcopenia, rather than the formal diagnostic criteria.

Geriatric rehabilitation provides multidisciplinary, patient-centred interventions to optimise functional recovery following a functional and physical decline related to an acute event and/or chronic conditions [1]. In Australia, older patients cleared for their medical conditions are being referred for geriatric rehabilitation [2]. Patients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation will receive a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) to develop an interdisciplinary care plan to meet their goals; the emphasis focuses on intervening obstacles to the patients’ return to an optimal level of independence or accessing ongoing support. Patients in VIC, Australia, are generally admitted to the geriatric rehabilitation wards for 28 days with some flexibility to allow patients to get an appropriate level of care post-discharge [2].

Geriatric rehabilitation patients often have several comorbidities [3]. Sarcopenia is one common comorbidity with a high prevalence ranging from 18.6% to 37.9% [4, 5]. This prevalence necessitates recognising and managing this disease as part of the multidisciplinary therapeutic interventions [1]. If left unrecognised and untreated, sarcopenia has high personal, social, and cost burdens to patients and health systems [6]. Furthermore, sarcopenia is associated with future hospitalisation and mortality post-discharge and should therewith be communicated to the medical practitioners caring for patients in the community after discharge from geriatric rehabilitation [7, 8].

Sarcopenia is an important geriatric condition, and to facilitate physicians making the diagnosis, the International Classification Disease-10 has accepted sarcopenia as a disease since 2016 [9, 10]. Therefore, sarcopenia is expected to be recognised equally to any other disease, and muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical performance should be assessed as part of geriatric rehabilitation routine practice [5]. Like other diseases, documentation of sarcopenia is important as it is the main means of communication with other clinicians outside of geriatric rehabilitation. It is unclear if clinicians document sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. Known barriers to identifying sarcopenia include lack of knowledge, availability of equipment, time constraints, and patients’ comorbidities rendering assessment difficult [11‒13]. Although multiple definitions of sarcopenia exist, posing another challenge [12], the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) has been promoted as the operational definition of sarcopenia for clinical use in the country of this study [6, 14]. This study aimed to investigate the documentation of sarcopenia in medical records, compared with the actual prevalence of sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients.

Study Design

This is a sub-study from the Restoring Health of Acutely Unwell Adults (RESORT) project, an observational, prospective longitudinal cohort of patients admitted to the geriatric rehabilitation wards at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, a statewide tertiary hospital in VIC, Australia. Inpatients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation during the recruitment period from 16 October 2017 to 18 March 2020 were recruited. Patients were excluded if they were receiving palliative care on admission, were transferred to acute care before consenting to the study, or lacked the capacity to provide informed consent with no nominated proxy available. All included patients underwent a CGA by a multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and dieticians within 48 h of admission [15].

The Melbourne Health Research Ethics Committee approved this study (HERC/17/MH/103). The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki [16]. All participants or their nominated proxies gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

Data Collection and Storage

Study data were collected and stored using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the studied institution [17]. As part of CGA, all data were collected within 48 h of admission to geriatric rehabilitation. Patient characteristics were collected from medical records or reported by the patient, the carer, or a researcher assisting the patient. Characteristics included age, sex, ethnicity, living situation before admission, persons living with patients, receiving home services, smoking status, and chronic comorbidities. Patients who lived in their own homes or rental units were considered in the community. Sources of admission to rehabilitation wards and length of stay in acute admissions and geriatric rehabilitation wards were extracted from medical records.

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated by weight divided by height squared, expressed in kg/m2. Height was measured using a stadiometer or was estimated from knee height using the Chumlea equation for Caucasians for patients unable to stand [18]. Weight was evaluated using a standing or seated scale or a weighted hoist depending on the ambulatory status. The Strength, Assistance in Walking, Rise from a Chair, Climb Stairs, Falls History (SARC-F) questionnaire was added to the CGA in July 2018 [19]. The total score ranges from 0 to 10 points, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of sarcopenia; a cutoff score of 4 points or higher defines the risk of sarcopenia. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was used by physicians to grade frailty from 1 to 9 points, representing very fit to terminally ill [20]. The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) was used by nurses to assess and classify malnutrition from 0 to 5 points [21]. A score of 2 or above indicates moderate to high risk of malnutrition. Patients who did not complete any tools were missing in their data and were not included in statistical analyses on those tools.

All muscle measurements were performed by trained healthcare professionals on admission to geriatric rehabilitation. Muscle strength was assessed by measuring handgrip strength in three attempts on both hands, alternating between right and left, instructing patients in a sitting position to bend the elbow at 90° to the body and squeeze with maximum effort with a handheld dynamometer (JAMAR, Sammons Preston, Inc., Boling-Brook, IL, USA) [22]. The maximum value in kg was used. The results were classified as abnormal (n = 81) if there were medical reasons impacting or hindering patients’ completion of all attempts, such as fractures or hemiparesis affecting performance on one side; these patients were still included in the operational definition for sarcopenia, with their best results typically on the unaffected limb used. The data were missing if patients refused, had language barriers, or had medical conditions hindering their participation, such as cognitive impairments or substantial pain or weakness. Physical performance was measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) on two attempts with scores from 0 to 4 points for each of the standing balance test, the timed chair stand test, and the timed 4-metre walk test to measure gait speed (m/s), giving a total score between 0 and 12 points with higher scores indicating better physical performance [23]. The data were missing if the patients refused or had language barriers.

Direct segmental multifrequency bio-electrical impedance analysis (InBody S10, Biospace Co., Ltd., Seoul, South Korea) was used by trained nursing staff to measure body composition. BIA was performed in the morning; patients were asked to remain still in a supine position, with arms not touching the trunk and legs apart for at least 10–15 min during the measurement. When recommended by an automated message from the device, remeasurements were conducted. This may be caused by movement during the measurement, inaccurate posture, or suboptimal conductivity due to dry skin or body lotion use as indicated by the manufacturer. Since geriatric rehabilitation patients were medically stable, the hydration statuses were at their baseline; 2 patients who required dialysis for their kidney disease had their BIA done after their dialysis. BIA was not performed when patients declined or contraindications were present [24], including (1) an electronic medical device or implant such as a pacemaker, (2) cast, dressing, or bandages interfering with the placing of the electrodes, (3) amputation, (4) contact isolation, (5) other medical reasons such as delirium, agitation, fracture limiting optimal positioning. Appendicular lean mass (ALM) was recorded in kg; ALM index (ALMI) was defined as ALM divided by height squared and expressed in kg/m2.

Evaluation of Sarcopenia

Sarcopenia was defined using the EWGSOP2 definition since it has been promoted for clinical use [14]. The definition confirmed sarcopenia as having both low muscle mass and muscle strength [6]. Muscle mass was low when ALMI was <7.0 kg/m2 for males or <5.5 kg/m2 for females; muscle strength was low with handgrip strength <27 kg for males or <16 kg for females, or chair stand time >15 s. Sarcopenia was considered severe when physical performance was poor, defined as gait speed ≤0.8 m/s or SPPB ≤8 points [6].

The documentation of sarcopenia as a diagnosis or comorbidity was evaluated at three time points: at discharge from acute admission, on admission to geriatric rehabilitation, and at discharge from geriatric rehabilitation. The acute admission data were of the patients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation wards only, whereas discharged acute hospital patients not transferred to geriatric rehabilitation were excluded from the data. Generally, upon becoming medically stable in an acute hospital, patients who required functional recovery were referred for geriatric rehabilitation [2]. The patients were waitlisted for geriatric rehabilitation and remained inpatients in acute wards until their beds were made available; the time between acute wards and geriatric rehabilitation may have depended on delayed access [2], patients’ recovery from acute illness, and consent for transfer. The documentation of sarcopenia was extracted from medical records, which were discharge summaries from acute admissions, rehabilitation admission notes, and rehabilitation discharge summaries. The documenting process was completed by healthcare professionals and was independent of the researcher’s evaluation of the actual prevalence of sarcopenia. Therefore, the documentation was used to reflect the clinicians’ utilisation of the EWGSOP2 definition.

Statistical Analyses

Data were analysed using Stata Release 18 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Continuous variables were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges; categorical variables were described as frequencies (n) and proportions (%). Documented sarcopenia was compared with sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP2 definition using cross tabulation. Patient characteristics were compared between the documented and non-documented groups of sarcopenia using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or one-sided Fisher’s exact test (if n <5) for categorical variables [25]. Two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Patient Characteristics and Prevalence of Sarcopenia

The cohort comprised 2,246 consecutive patients eligible for recruitment; 356 met exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). Patient characteristics of the included 1,890 patients (median [interquartile range] age 83.4 [77.6, 88.4] years, 56.3% female) are shown in Table 1. Most patients were of European ethnicity (87.6%) and were living in the community prior to admission (91.2%) rather than nursing homes (2.7%). About half were living alone (42.2%) or with a partner or children (52.3%) and were receiving home services (54.1%). Most patients were admitted from acute wards (96.8%), while 60 patients came from other sources (directly from patients’ accommodation n = 2, transferred from external care and other subacute wards n = 58). The median length of stay in acute admissions was 7.2 (4.1–12.5) days, and in geriatric rehabilitation, it was 19.9 (13.1, 31.0) days. Patients’ comorbidities, BMI, SARC-F, CFS, and MST scores are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1.

Patients documented with sarcopenia from the RESORT cohort * Sarcopenia was defined using the EWGSOP2 definition [14].

Fig. 1.

Patients documented with sarcopenia from the RESORT cohort * Sarcopenia was defined using the EWGSOP2 definition [14].

Close modal
Table 1.

Patient characteristics and sarcopenia measures at geriatric rehabilitation admission (N = 1,890)

VariablesNTotal
Patient characteristics 
 Age, median [IQR], years 1,890 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 
 Female 1,890 1,065 (56.3) 
 Ethnicity 1,824  
  European/Caucasian  1,598 (87.6) 
  Asian  92 (5.0) 
 Living situation prior to admission 1,890  
  Community-dwelling  1,724 (91.2) 
  Nursing homes  51 (2.7) 
 Persons living with patients 1,884  
  Living alone  795 (42.2) 
  With partner or children  985 (52.3) 
 Receiving home services 1,815 982 (54.1) 
 Chronic comorbidities 1,890  
  Cardiac disease (MI, CCF)  713 (37.7) 
  Hypertension  1,323 (70.0) 
  Stroke  621 (32.9) 
  COPD  342 (18.1) 
  Dementia  474 (25.1) 
  Diabetes  682 (36.1) 
  Chronic kidney disease  564 (29.8) 
  Osteoporosis  560 (29.6) 
  Cognitive impairment  1,231 (65.1) 
  Visual impairment  593 (31.4) 
  Urine incontinence  1,048 (56.1) 
 Admitted from acute care 1,890 1,830 (96.8) 
 Length of acute admission, median [IQR], days 1,830 7.2 [4.1–12.5] 
 Length of rehabilitation stay, median [IQR], days 1,890 19.9 [13.1–31.0] 
 BMI, median [IQR], kg/m2 1,838 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 
 SARC-F score, median [IQR]a 876 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 
 CFS score, median [IQR] 1,716 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 
 MST score, median [IQR] 1,863 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 
Sarcopenia components (EWGSOP2) 
 Low muscle mass 1,367 331 (24.2) 
 Low muscle strength 1,832 1,350 (73.7) 
 Low physical performance 1,811 1,740 (96.1) 
Prevalence of sarcopenia (EWGSOP2) 
 Sarcopenia 1,334 278 (20.8) 
 Severe sarcopenia 1,318 262 (19.9) 
VariablesNTotal
Patient characteristics 
 Age, median [IQR], years 1,890 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 
 Female 1,890 1,065 (56.3) 
 Ethnicity 1,824  
  European/Caucasian  1,598 (87.6) 
  Asian  92 (5.0) 
 Living situation prior to admission 1,890  
  Community-dwelling  1,724 (91.2) 
  Nursing homes  51 (2.7) 
 Persons living with patients 1,884  
  Living alone  795 (42.2) 
  With partner or children  985 (52.3) 
 Receiving home services 1,815 982 (54.1) 
 Chronic comorbidities 1,890  
  Cardiac disease (MI, CCF)  713 (37.7) 
  Hypertension  1,323 (70.0) 
  Stroke  621 (32.9) 
  COPD  342 (18.1) 
  Dementia  474 (25.1) 
  Diabetes  682 (36.1) 
  Chronic kidney disease  564 (29.8) 
  Osteoporosis  560 (29.6) 
  Cognitive impairment  1,231 (65.1) 
  Visual impairment  593 (31.4) 
  Urine incontinence  1,048 (56.1) 
 Admitted from acute care 1,890 1,830 (96.8) 
 Length of acute admission, median [IQR], days 1,830 7.2 [4.1–12.5] 
 Length of rehabilitation stay, median [IQR], days 1,890 19.9 [13.1–31.0] 
 BMI, median [IQR], kg/m2 1,838 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 
 SARC-F score, median [IQR]a 876 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 
 CFS score, median [IQR] 1,716 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 
 MST score, median [IQR] 1,863 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 
Sarcopenia components (EWGSOP2) 
 Low muscle mass 1,367 331 (24.2) 
 Low muscle strength 1,832 1,350 (73.7) 
 Low physical performance 1,811 1,740 (96.1) 
Prevalence of sarcopenia (EWGSOP2) 
 Sarcopenia 1,334 278 (20.8) 
 Severe sarcopenia 1,318 262 (19.9) 

Data are displayed as n (%) unless stated otherwise.

MI, myocardial infarction; CCF, congestive cardiac failure; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; BMI, body mass index; SARC-F, Strength, Assistance in Walking, Rise from a Chair, Climb Stairs, Falls History; CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale; MST, Malnutrition Screening Tool; EWGSOP2, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2.

aThe SARC-F questionnaire was added to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in July 2018.

The prevalence of sarcopenia using the EWGSOP2 definition is shown in Table 1. Applying the EWGSOP2 criteria [6], the prevalence of low muscle mass was 24.2% (n = 331 of 1,367 patients completing BIA), low muscle strength was 73.7% (n = 1,350 of 1,832 patients), and low physical performance was 96.1% (n = 1,740 of 1,811 patients with data available). In 1,334 patients whose data on muscle measures were available to apply the EWGSOP2 criteria [6], the prevalence of sarcopenia was 20.8% (n = 278), and severe sarcopenia was 19.9% (n = 262).

Documentation of Sarcopenia

Out of 1,890 patients, 68 patients (3.6%) were documented with sarcopenia; 23 of them did not have muscle mass or muscle strength measured (Fig. 1). Of the other 45 patients documented with sarcopenia who had available muscle measurement data using the EWGSOP2 definition, 9 patients were documented at discharge from acute admission, 25 patients were documented on admission to geriatric rehabilitation, and 26 patients were documented at discharge from geriatric rehabilitation (Table 2; Fig. 2). Of these 45 patients, eight had sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP2 definition (n = 4 at discharge from acute admission, n = 8 at geriatric rehabilitation admission, n = 2 at geriatric rehabilitation discharge), whereas the other 37 patients did not have sarcopenia by this definition (Table 2; Fig. 2). Five patients had overlapping documentation at all three time points (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows the patients documented with sarcopenia following the EWGSOP2 algorithm for diagnosis of sarcopenia. Of 107 cases of confirmed sarcopenia, 4 patients were correctly documented.

Table 2.

Number of geriatric rehabilitation patients having sarcopenia by applying the EWGSOP2 definition and documentation of sarcopenia at three time points

SarcopeniaNo sarcopeniaTotal
Discharge from acute admission 
 Documented 
 Not documented 261 1,023 1,284 
 Total 265 1,028 1,293 
Geriatric rehabilitation admission 
 Documented 17 25 
 Not documented 270 1,039 1,309 
 Total 278 1,056 1,334 
Geriatric rehabilitation discharge 
 Documented 24 26 
 Not documented 276 1,032 1,308 
 Total 278 1,056 1,334 
SarcopeniaNo sarcopeniaTotal
Discharge from acute admission 
 Documented 
 Not documented 261 1,023 1,284 
 Total 265 1,028 1,293 
Geriatric rehabilitation admission 
 Documented 17 25 
 Not documented 270 1,039 1,309 
 Total 278 1,056 1,334 
Geriatric rehabilitation discharge 
 Documented 24 26 
 Not documented 276 1,032 1,308 
 Total 278 1,056 1,334 

Data are displayed as n (%).

Fig. 2.

Number of geriatric rehabilitation patients having sarcopenia by applying the EWGSOP2 definition and documented sarcopenia at three time points. A total of 1,334 patients whose data were available using the EWGSOP2 definition were evaluated. Patients documented with sarcopenia: at discharge from acute admission (red, sarcopenic: n = 4, non-sarcopenic: n = 5), on admission to geriatric rehabilitation (white, sarcopenic: n = 8, non-sarcopenic: n = 17), and at discharge from geriatric rehabilitation (blue, sarcopenic: n = 2, non-sarcopenic: n = 24). Overlapping documentation at all time points: sarcopenic: n = 2, non-sarcopenic: n = 3.

Fig. 2.

Number of geriatric rehabilitation patients having sarcopenia by applying the EWGSOP2 definition and documented sarcopenia at three time points. A total of 1,334 patients whose data were available using the EWGSOP2 definition were evaluated. Patients documented with sarcopenia: at discharge from acute admission (red, sarcopenic: n = 4, non-sarcopenic: n = 5), on admission to geriatric rehabilitation (white, sarcopenic: n = 8, non-sarcopenic: n = 17), and at discharge from geriatric rehabilitation (blue, sarcopenic: n = 2, non-sarcopenic: n = 24). Overlapping documentation at all time points: sarcopenic: n = 2, non-sarcopenic: n = 3.

Close modal
Fig. 3.

Patients with documented sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP2 algorithm for diagnosis of sarcopenia (N = 1,890). * The SARC-F questionnaire was added to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in July 2018.

Fig. 3.

Patients with documented sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP2 algorithm for diagnosis of sarcopenia (N = 1,890). * The SARC-F questionnaire was added to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in July 2018.

Close modal

Patient Characteristics between Documented and Non-Documented Groups

Patients who were documented with sarcopenia had lower SARC-F scores compared with patients who had no sarcopenia documented (Table 3). At geriatric rehabilitation admission, patients who had sarcopenia documented had lower BMI and higher CFS scores compared with those with no documented sarcopenia. At geriatric rehabilitation discharge, patients coming from nursing homes were more likely to be documented with sarcopenia. Analysis of all other patient characteristics was shown in online supplementary Table 1 (for all online suppl. material, see https://doi.org/10.1159/000543620). There was no difference in most variables, except patients with chronic kidney disease and urinary incontinence were more likely to be documented with sarcopenia at geriatric rehabilitation admission and discharge, respectively.

Table 3.

Patient characteristics compared between patients with documented sarcopenia and patients with no documentation of sarcopenia

VariablesNAcute admissionRehabilitation admissionRehabilitation discharge
documented, n = 18not documented, n = 1,812p valuedocumented, n = 45not documented, n = 1,845p valuedocumented, n = 38not documented, n = 1,852p value
Age, years 1,890 83.6 [78.5–87.8] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.65a 84.3 [77.8–91.1] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.50a 85.7 [78.5–91.1] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.14a 
Female, n (%) 1,890 12 (66.7) 1,017 (56.1) 0.37b 23 (51.1) 1,042 (56.5) 0.47b 21 (55.3) 1,044 (56.4) 0.89b 
BMI, kg/m2 1,838 24.0 [20.6–27.5] 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 0.25a 22.9 [19.7–26.0] 26.0 [22.6–30.2] <0.001a 24.8 [22.1–27.0] 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 0.10a 
Came from nursing homes, n (%) 1,890 2 (11.1) 47 (2.59) 0.08c 3 (6.7) 48 (2.6) 0.12c 4 (10.5) 47 (2.5) 0.018c 
SARC-F scored 876 5.5 [2.0–6.5] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 0.028a 6.0 [3.5–8.0] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 0.007a 5.0 [2.0–7.0] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] <0.001a 
CFS score 1,716 6.5 [6.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 0.18a 7.0 [6.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] <0.001a 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 0.27a 
MST score 1,863 0.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.50a 0.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.15a 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.88a 
SPPB 1,789 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.40a 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.18a 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.06a 
VariablesNAcute admissionRehabilitation admissionRehabilitation discharge
documented, n = 18not documented, n = 1,812p valuedocumented, n = 45not documented, n = 1,845p valuedocumented, n = 38not documented, n = 1,852p value
Age, years 1,890 83.6 [78.5–87.8] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.65a 84.3 [77.8–91.1] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.50a 85.7 [78.5–91.1] 83.4 [77.6–88.4] 0.14a 
Female, n (%) 1,890 12 (66.7) 1,017 (56.1) 0.37b 23 (51.1) 1,042 (56.5) 0.47b 21 (55.3) 1,044 (56.4) 0.89b 
BMI, kg/m2 1,838 24.0 [20.6–27.5] 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 0.25a 22.9 [19.7–26.0] 26.0 [22.6–30.2] <0.001a 24.8 [22.1–27.0] 25.9 [22.5–30.2] 0.10a 
Came from nursing homes, n (%) 1,890 2 (11.1) 47 (2.59) 0.08c 3 (6.7) 48 (2.6) 0.12c 4 (10.5) 47 (2.5) 0.018c 
SARC-F scored 876 5.5 [2.0–6.5] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 0.028a 6.0 [3.5–8.0] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] 0.007a 5.0 [2.0–7.0] 7.0 [5.0–8.0] <0.001a 
CFS score 1,716 6.5 [6.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 0.18a 7.0 [6.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] <0.001a 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 6.0 [5.0–7.0] 0.27a 
MST score 1,863 0.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.50a 0.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.15a 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 1.0 [0.0–2.0] 0.88a 
SPPB 1,789 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.40a 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.18a 0.0 [0.0–3.0] 1.0 [0.0–4.0] 0.06a 

Numbers are given as median [IQR] unless otherwise stated.

BMI, body mass index; SARC-F, Strength, Assistance in Walking, Rise from a Chair, Climb Stairs, Falls History; CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale; MST, Malnutrition Screening Tool; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery.

Patients who did not complete any tools were missing in their data and were not included in statistical analyses on those tools.

Bold values indicate statistically significant results (p < 0.05).

p values were retrieved from the tests.

aWilcoxon rank-sum test.

bChi-square test.

cOne-sided Fisher’s exact test.

dThe SARC-F questionnaire was added to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in July 2018.

In this prospective cohort study of inpatients admitted to the geriatric rehabilitation wards, sarcopenia prevalence was high, but documentation of the disease was low, and there was no agreement with the actual prevalence. Patients with documentation of sarcopenia had higher scores on SARC-F or CFS, lower BMI, or came from nursing homes.

Poor documentation of sarcopenia implies that sarcopenia has not been recorded in routine clinical practice in geriatric rehabilitation, despite the availability of muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance measures in a cohort of high needs for diagnosis [5]. Sarcopenia was, therefore, not the priority of treatment goals set by the clinicians. It should be noted that while muscle measurements may not have occurred during acute admissions [26], the high proportion of patients documented with sarcopenia but did not have this condition supported an incorrect documenting process. Surveys in Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the UK also showed that most healthcare professionals did not diagnose sarcopenia as part of their routine practice [11, 27, 28], despite the willingness of older individuals to start treatment [29, 30].

Several barriers to identifying sarcopenia are known [11, 12]. Many patients who did not undergo BIA were possibly due to the staff’s lack of time, other priorities, or incapability to perform the measurement [24, 31]. Other reasons included medical conditions that contraindicate or limit the measurement, technical issues, or patients’ refusal to undergo the measurement(s) [24]. However, this RESORT cohort had a BIA completion rate of 77.1% of patients at admission and 63.2% at discharge, indicating good feasibility of BIA in routine clinical practice in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients [24]. Other barriers were patients’ other comorbidities taking priority in treatment goals or the clinicians’ lack of knowledge or time to diagnose sarcopenia in clinical practice [3, 11, 26, 28].

Sarcopenia was incorrectly documented in patients with missing data on muscle measurements required for diagnosis and in patients without sarcopenia. Therefore, the documentation was presumably based on other factors rather than the formal diagnostic criteria. This study found tools such as SARC-F, CFS, and BMI, and coming from nursing homes were different between the documented and non-documented groups. Hence, clinicians may have predominantly used their clinical impressions and screening tools to identify sarcopenia. Similarly, a survey of healthcare professionals indicated that often formal diagnostic algorithms or tools to diagnose sarcopenia are not being used [27]. Interestingly, SARC-F scores were lower in those documented than those not documented with sarcopenia, which is in line with the relatively poor validity of the tool [32, 33]. While the CFS has been validated in screening for frailty and there are close links between frailty and sarcopenia [34], this tool is not intended to screen for or diagnose sarcopenia. Similarly, BMI and accommodation may provide a clinical impression of the patient’s body composition and physical function but do not constitute diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia. However, as the nursing home sample size was small, its implication was limited. Finally, there was no between-group difference in the SPPB scores, which measure physical performance. Since the SPPB has demonstrated feasibility in clinical practice and has been recognised as a part of the EWGSOP2 definition for severe sarcopenia [23, 35, 36], this finding further supports the poor utilisation of a validated tool to evaluate sarcopenia in clinical settings.

The findings from this study have important clinical and research implications. While geriatric rehabilitation should be a well-equipped environment to identify and manage sarcopenia owing to its multidisciplinary teams, facility, and expertise in geriatric medicine [1], patients with sarcopenia are most likely undocumented. Patients are at risk of not receiving ongoing treatment post-discharge due to the lack of communication with clinicians in the community. The aim of functional recovery may not serve these patients well since they have an ongoing, untreated risk of falls, physical disability, and mortality [6, 37, 38]. This risk necessitates clinicians’ awareness and prioritising sarcopenia. Future research should focus on implementation strategies for sarcopenia documentation in geriatric rehabilitation. Qualitative studies are needed for a more nuanced exploration into the barriers at practitioner and patient levels.

When documenting sarcopenia, it is recommended to classify the sarcopenia case where possible, including primary or secondary and acute or chronic [6, 26]. Most sarcopenia cases in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients would be secondary sarcopenia due to their multiple comorbidities predisposing them to the disease [3, 6]. Classifying sarcopenia as acute or chronic is more difficult because geriatric rehabilitation inpatients share several risk factors for both, including their comorbidities and acute illnesses prior to admission. Furthermore, the 6-month cutoff point to distinguish between acute and chronic sarcopenia may be difficult to utilise due to the lack of prior case-finding and follow-ups [11, 27, 28]. Clinicians should also focus on identifying and treating the reversible secondary causes besides nutrition supplementation and resistance exercise when managing secondary sarcopenia. Ongoing re-evaluation of sarcopenia and the predisposing factors are important for the treatment process, requiring ongoing documentation of sarcopenia.

This study has several strengths. It is one of the few studies indicating the documentation of sarcopenia in clinical practice. Since studies on this topic mainly used standardised surveys of health professionals [11, 27, 28], utilisation of medical records has the advantage of a more objective exploration into the identification of sarcopenia. Other strengths include a large sample size, controlled selection bias where possible, and inpatient geriatric rehabilitation settings which are better equipped to intervene with sarcopenia. Limitations include the attrition rate from the patients not undergoing muscle assessments, mainly due to the completion rate of BIA, yet it was deemed an acceptable rate [24]. Additionally, the small number of patients documented with sarcopenia in a single-centre study may have limited the statistical power of the statistical analysis. Finally, although we proposed the documentation practice and the possible barriers impacting the documentation of sarcopenia, we had insufficient data to evaluate them.

In conclusion, this study found lower documentation of sarcopenia than the prevalence of sarcopenia in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients. Sarcopenia was incorrectly documented in patients with missing data on muscle measurements that are required for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Practitioners likely used clinical impressions to document sarcopenia, rather than the formal diagnostic criteria. Patients are at risk of not receiving ongoing treatment post-discharge due to the lack of communication with clinicians in the community.

The authors thank the multidisciplinary team members of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Park Campus, involved in the RESORT cohort for their clinical work and the @AgeMelbourne team for their role in the data collection.

The Melbourne Health Research Ethics Committee approved this study (HERC/17/MH/103). The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants or their nominated proxies gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This work was supported by the University of Melbourne (unrestricted grant received by Prof. Andrea B. Maier) and the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) provided by the Melbourne Academic Centre for Health (MACH). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, and the preparation of this article.

Study conception and design: T.D., C.H.S., E.M.R., and A.B.M. Data collection: C.H.S. and E.M.R. Data curation: E.M.R. and L.G. Data analysis and interpretation: T.D. and A.B.M. Prepared the manuscript: T.D. Revised and approved the final manuscript: all authors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

1.
Grund
S
,
Gordon
AL
,
van Balen
R
,
Bachmann
S
,
Cherubini
A
,
Landi
F
, et al
.
European consensus on core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation: consensus statement
.
Eur Geriatr Med
.
2020
;
11
(
2
):
233
8
.
2.
Metropolitan Health and Aged Care Services Division, Victorian Government Department of Human Services
.
Improving care for older people: a policy for Health Services
.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
;
2011
.
3.
Bernard
S
,
Inderjeeth
C
,
Raymond
W
.
Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores do not influence Functional Independence Measure score gains in older rehabilitation patients
.
Australas J Ageing
.
2016
;
35
(
4
):
236
41
.
4.
Pacifico
J
,
Geerlings
MAJ
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Phassouliotis
C
,
Lim
WK
,
Maier
AB
.
Prevalence of sarcopenia as a comorbid disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Exp Gerontol
.
2020
;
131
:
110801
.
5.
Pacifico
J
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Lim
WK
,
Maier
AB
.
The association between sarcopenia as a comorbid disease and incidence of institutionalisation and mortality in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT)
.
Gerontology
.
2022
;
68
(
5
):
498
508
.
6.
Cruz-Jentoft
AJ
,
Bahat
G
,
Bauer
J
,
Boirie
Y
,
Bruyère
O
,
Cederholm
T
, et al
.
Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis
.
Age Ageing
.
2019
;
48
(
4
):
601
31
.
7.
Zhao
Y
,
Zhang
Y
,
Hao
Q
,
Ge
M
,
Dong
B
.
Sarcopenia and hospital-related outcomes in the old people: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Aging Clin Exp Res
.
2019
;
31
(
1
):
5
14
.
8.
Xu
J
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Pacifico
J
,
Wan
CS
,
Maier
AB
.
Sarcopenia is associated with 3-month and 1-year mortality in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: RESORT
.
Age Ageing
.
2021
;
50
(
6
):
2147
56
.
9.
Anker
SD
,
Morley
JE
,
von Haehling
S
.
Welcome to the ICD-10 code for sarcopenia
.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
.
2016
;
7
(
5
):
512
4
.
10.
Cao
L
,
Morley
JE
.
Sarcopenia is recognized as an independent condition by an international classification of disease, tenth revision, clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) code
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc
.
2016
;
17
(
8
):
675
7
.
11.
Reijnierse
EM
,
de van der Schueren
MAE
,
Trappenburg
MC
,
Doves
M
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Maier
AB
.
Lack of knowledge and availability of diagnostic equipment could hinder the diagnosis of sarcopenia and its management
.
PLoS One
.
2017
;
12
(
10
):
e0185837
.
12.
Daly
RM
,
Iuliano
S
,
Fyfe
JJ
,
Scott
D
,
Kirk
B
,
Thompson
MQ
, et al
.
Screening, diagnosis and management of sarcopenia and frailty in hospitalized older adults: recommendations from the Australian and New Zealand society for sarcopenia and frailty research (ANZSSFR) expert working group
.
J Nutr Health Aging
.
2022
;
26
(
6
):
637
51
.
13.
Verstraeten
LMG
,
van Wijngaarden
JP
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Maier
AB
.
High sarcopenia awareness contrasts a lack of clinical implementation among geriatric rehabilitation health care professionals in The Netherlands: empower-gr
.
J Geriatr Phys Ther
.
2024
;
47
(
2
):
67
76
.
14.
Zanker
J
,
Scott
D
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Brennan-Olsen
SL
,
Daly
RM
,
Girgis
CM
, et al
.
Establishing an operational definition of sarcopenia in Australia and New Zealand: delphi method based consensus statement
.
J Nutr Health Aging
.
2019
;
23
(
1
):
105
10
.
15.
Ellis
G
,
Gardner
M
,
Tsiachristas
A
,
Langhorne
P
,
Burke
O
,
Harwood
RH
, et al
.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2017
;
9
(
9
):
Cd006211
.
16.
World Medical Association
.
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
.
JAMA
.
2013
;
310
(
20
):
2191
4
.
17.
Harris
PA
,
Taylor
R
,
Minor
BL
,
Elliott
V
,
Fernandez
M
,
O’Neal
L
, et al
.
The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners
.
J Biomed Inform
.
2019
;
95
:
103208
.
18.
Chumlea
WC
,
Guo
S
.
Equations for predicting stature in white and black elderly individuals
.
J Gerontol
.
1992
;
47
(
6
):
M197
203
.
19.
Malmstrom
TK
,
Morley
JE
.
SARC-F: a simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc
.
2013
;
14
(
8
):
531
2
.
20.
Church
S
,
Rogers
E
,
Rockwood
K
,
Theou
O
.
A scoping review of the clinical frailty scale
.
BMC Geriatr
.
2020
;
20
(
1
):
393
.
21.
Ferguson
M
,
Capra
S
,
Bauer
J
,
Banks
M
.
Development of a valid and reliable malnutrition screening tool for adult acute hospital patients
.
Nutrition
.
1999
;
15
(
6
):
458
64
.
22.
Reijnierse
EM
,
de Jong
N
,
Trappenburg
MC
,
Blauw
GJ
,
Butler-Browne
G
,
Gapeyeva
H
, et al
.
Assessment of maximal handgrip strength: how many attempts are needed
.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
.
2017
;
8
(
3
):
466
74
.
23.
Guralnik
JM
,
Simonsick
EM
,
Ferrucci
L
,
Glynn
RJ
,
Berkman
LF
,
Blazer
DG
, et al
.
A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission
.
J Gerontol
.
1994
;
49
(
2
):
M85
94
.
24.
Verstraeten
LMG
,
van Wijngaarden
JP
,
Kim
DY
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Maier
AB
.
Feasibility of bioelectrical impedance analysis in routine clinical care to assess body composition in geriatric rehabilitation inpatients: RESORT
.
Aging Clin Exp Res
.
2023
;
35
(
2
):
293
302
.
25.
Kim
HY
.
Statistical notes for clinical researchers: chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test
.
Restor Dent Endod
.
2017
;
42
(
2
):
152
5
.
26.
Montero-Errasquín
B
,
Cruz-Jentoft
AJ
.
Acute sarcopenia
.
Gerontology
.
2023
;
69
(
5
):
519
25
.
27.
Offord
NJ
,
Clegg
A
,
Turner
G
,
Dodds
RM
,
Sayer
AA
,
Witham
MD
.
Current practice in the diagnosis and management of sarcopenia and frailty - results from a UK-wide survey
.
J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls
.
2019
;
4
(
3
):
71
7
.
28.
Yeung
SSY
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Trappenburg
MC
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Maier
AB
.
Current knowledge and practice of Australian and New Zealand health-care professionals in sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment: time to move forward
.
Australas J Ageing
.
2020
;
39
(
2
):
e185
93
.
29.
Van Ancum
JM
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Yeung
SSY
,
Jonkman
NH
,
Trappenburg
MC
, et al
.
Lack of knowledge contrasts the willingness to counteract sarcopenia among community-dwelling adults
.
J Aging Health
.
2020
;
32
(
7–8
):
787
94
.
30.
Verstraeten
LMG
,
Mashni
A
,
van Wijngaarden
JP
,
Meskers
CGM
,
Maier
AB
.
Sarcopenia knowledge of geriatric rehabilitation patients is low while they are willing to start sarcopenia treatment: empower-gr
.
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
.
2024
;
15
(
1
):
352
60
.
31.
Gravlin
G
,
Phoenix Bittner
N
.
Nurses’ and nursing assistants’ reports of missed care and delegation
.
J Nurs Adm
.
2010
;
40
(
7–8
):
329
35
.
32.
Voelker
SN
,
Michalopoulos
N
,
Maier
AB
,
Reijnierse
EM
.
Reliability and concurrent validity of the SARC-F and its modified versions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc
.
2021
;
22
(
9
):
1864
76.e16
.
33.
Dedeyne
L
,
Reijnierse
EM
,
Pacifico
J
,
Kay
JE
,
Maggs
P
,
Verschueren
S
, et al
.
SARC-F is inaccurate to identify geriatric rehabilitation inpatients at risk for sarcopenia: RESORT
.
Gerontology
.
2022
;
68
(
3
):
252
60
.
34.
Ligthart-Melis
GC
,
Luiking
YC
,
Kakourou
A
,
Cederholm
T
,
Maier
AB
,
de van der Schueren
MAE
.
Frailty, sarcopenia, and malnutrition frequently (Co-)occur in hospitalized older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc
.
2020
;
21
(
9
):
1216
28
.
35.
Thaweewannakij
T
,
Wilaichit
S
,
Chuchot
R
,
Yuenyong
Y
,
Saengsuwan
J
,
Siritaratiwat
W
, et al
.
Reference values of physical performance in Thai elderly people who are functioning well and dwelling in the community
.
Phys Ther
.
2013
;
93
(
10
):
1312
20
.
36.
Ramírez-Vélez
R
,
López Sáez de Asteasu
M
,
Morley
JE
,
Cano-Gutierrez
CA
,
Izquierdo
M
.
Performance of the short physical performance battery in identifying the frailty phenotype and predicting geriatric syndromes in community-dwelling elderly
.
J Nutr Health Aging
.
2021
;
25
(
2
):
209
17
.
37.
Beaudart
C
,
Zaaria
M
,
Pasleau
F
,
Reginster
JY
,
Bruyère
O
.
Health outcomes of sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
PLoS One
.
2017
;
12
(
1
):
e0169548
.
38.
Tsekoura
M
,
Kastrinis
A
,
Katsoulaki
M
,
Billis
E
,
Gliatis
J
.
Sarcopenia and its impact on quality of life
.
Adv Exp Med Biol
.
2017
;
987
:
213
8
.