Reconsiderations based on comments from Phase 1 of case 2

Pertinent facts not related to nutritional hypothesis
2. we recalculated with her body weight prior to hospital admission
3. Interosseous means wasting between the bone and the muscle and we would 
physically expect to see challenged mobility and increased likelihood of falling.
6. CAD= Coronary Artery Disease.  When you have high cholesterol it is linked to an 
increased risk of ischemic stroke.  Dysphasia can result from stroke and AD 
(therapeutic text).

Pertinent facts related to marasmus
7. According to Contemporary nutrition support practice the UAMA is in the 10th 
percentile, therefore some muscle wasting is evident.
9.  The nitrogen to creatinine ration is maintained when you eat.
10. We used the Harris Benedict equation to calculate her IBW and we compared this to 
her weight upon admission.

Nutritional Requirements
We looked at REE verses BEE with a 1.2 injury factor and decided that her REE alone 
was not enough to replenish her nutritionally and increase her weight.
We got the method for calculating fluid requirements from our therapeutic notes.
We feel that we could start out at our goal calories for weight gain because if the patient 
is capable of tolerating it then we feel that we should get started immediately.
We are putting her on a normal formula and hoping that SBO will no longer be a problem 
because we are increasing her fluids.
We decided on short term because we feel she is capable of eating but she needs to 
increase her intake and weight now.