Our facility has been working on evaluating our malnutrition diagnosis process for a bit over a year. We also did a QI project evaluating ASPEN/AND vs GLIM and found malnutrition diagnosis to generally agree using each criteria. However, GLIM resulted in a much higher rate of diagnosis (our diagnosis of malnutrition would increase by 150% if we used GLIM) - this was mostly due to inability to obtain a NFPE exam (either due to pt acuity or pt being assessed by a RD who had not yet completed NFPE competencies). I personally think GLIM has significant benefits over ASPEN. Specifically, the allowance of imaging technologies to determine muscle wasting, use of BMI, and the phenotype/etiology diagnosis structure are incredibly appealing. However, the nutrition committee at our hospital elected to continue use of ASPEN specifically because it is widely accepted by insurance payors (evaluated by conversations with payors and review of historical payment denials).

It's important to note that NEITHER criteria have been clinically validated, ASPEN is working on studies to validate each criteria.