PP176-SUN NUTRITIONAL RISK IS UNDERDIAGNOSED IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS, BUT NEGATIVELY AFFECTS CLINICAL OUTCOME: COMPARISON BETWEEN NUTRITION SCREENING TOOLS AND PHASE ANGLE

Purpose: Several studies show that malnutrition is prevalent in health care facilities, especially among elderly patients and nursing home residents. Although validated screening tools exist, little evidence exists on the feasibility of implementing nutrition screening in health care facilities. We examined New Brunswick health care professionals’ perceptions of and practices involving nutrition screening in elderly clients, as well as barriers to screening. Methods: A survey was conducted with questionnaires intended for physicians, nurses, and dietitians. Results: Participants were 457 health care professionals (physicians, 34.6%; nurses, 50.3%; dietitians, 15.1%). Perceptions of nutrition screening varied. For example, most nurses (94.7%) and dietitians (98.5%) indicated that screening was important/ very important, while only 63.5% of physicians indicated this. Screening methods also differed among professionals and few used a screening tool. Several barriers to implementing nutrition screening were reported, such as lack of time, lack of professional resources, and clients’ short stays. Conclusions: These findings will help professionals address the feasibility of implementing standardized screening tools in health care facilities. A more consistent and systematic approach for detecting populations at high nutritional risk may result.

Download Full-text

Nutritional status and screening tools to detect nutritional risk in hospitalized patients with hepatic echinococcosis

Parasite ◽

10.1051/parasite/2020071 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 ◽

pp. 74

Author(s):

Zhan Wang ◽

Jin Xu ◽

Ge Song ◽

MingQuan Pang ◽

Bin Guo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nutritional Status ◽

Nutritional Assessment ◽

Short Form ◽

Risk Index ◽

Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Screening Tools ◽

Nutritional Risk ◽

Nutritional Screening ◽

Nrs 2002

Background: Echinococcosis is a chronic consumptive liver disease. Little research has been carried out on the nutritional status of infected patients, though liver diseases are often associated with malnutrition. Our study investigated four different nutrition screening tools, to assess nutritional risks of hospitalized patients with echinococcosis. Methods: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Short Form of Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI) were used to assess 164 patients with alveolar echinococcosis (AE) and 232 with cystic echinococcosis (CE). Results were then compared with European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) criteria for malnutrition diagnosis. Results: According to ESPEN standards for malnutrition diagnosis, 29.2% of CE patients and 31.1% of AE patients were malnourished. The malnutrition risk rates for CE and AE patients were as follows: NRS 2002 – 40.3% and 30.7%; MUST – 51.5% and 50.9%; MNA-SF – 46.8% and 44.1%; and NRI – 51.1% and 67.4%. In patients with CE, MNA-SF and NRS 2002 results correlated well with ESPEN results (k = 0.515, 0.496). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of MNA-SF and NRS 2002 were 0.803 and 0.776, respectively. For patients with AE, NRS 2002 and MNA-SF results correlated well with ESPEN (k = 0.555, 0.493). AUC values of NRS 2002 and MNA-SF were 0.776 and 0.792, respectively. Conclusion: This study is the first to analyze hospitalized echinococcosis patients based on these nutritional screening tools. Our results suggest that NRS 2002 and MNA-SF are suitable tools for nutritional screening of inpatients with echinococcosis.

Download Full-text

Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools for predictingsarcopenia in hospitalized patients

TURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ◽

10.3906/sag-1702-43 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 47 ◽

pp. 1362-1369 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Mehmet YÜRÜYEN ◽

Hakan YAVUZER ◽

Serap YAVUZER ◽

Mahir CENGİZ ◽

Filiz DEMİRDAĞ ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Screening Tools ◽

Nutritional Risk ◽

Risk Screening ◽

Nutritional Risk Screening

Download Full-text

Coronavirus Disease 19 from the Perspective of Ageing with Focus on Nutritional Status and Nutrition Management—A Narrative Review

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu13041294 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 1294

Author(s):

Elisabet Rothenberg

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Nutritional Status ◽

Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽

High Sensitivity ◽

Screening Tools ◽

Nutrition Support ◽

Nutritional Risk ◽

Nutrition Screening ◽

Nutrition Management ◽

Age Related

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (COVID-19) has hit older adults harder due to a combination of age-related immunological and metabolic alterations. The aim of this review was to analyze the COVID-19 literature with respect to nutritional status and nutrition management in older adults. No studies only on people aged 65+ years were found, and documentation on those 80+ was rare. Age was found to be strongly associated with worse outcomes, and with poor nutritional status. Prevalence of malnutrition was high among severely and critically ill patients. The studies found a need for nutrition screening and management, and for nutrition support as part of follow-up after a hospital stay. Most tested screening tools showed high sensitivity in identifying nutritional risk, but none were recognized as best for screening older adults with COVID-19. For diagnosing malnutrition, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are recommended but were not used in the studies found. Documentation of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in relation to nutritional status is missing in older adults. Other COVID-19-associated factors with a possible impact on nutritional status are poor appetite and gastrointestinal symptoms. Vitamin D is the nutrient that has attracted the most interest. However, evidence for supplementation of COVID-19 patients is still limited and inconclusive.

Download Full-text

Omitting the First Step of GLIM Framework Yielded Better Accordance With PG-SGA in Chinese Ambulatory Cancer Patients: a Prospective Cross-sectional Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1013336/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yanfei Wang ◽

Ziqi Liu ◽

yunyi Wang ◽

Xiaoyan Chen ◽

Zhongfen Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Patients ◽

Screening Tool ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Screening Tools ◽

Nutritional Risk ◽

Severe Malnutrition ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Nutrition Screening ◽

Predictive Values

Abstract Background and Aims: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria is a new framework for diagnosing malnutrition in combination of phenotypic and etiologic criteria after nutrition screening using validated screening tools. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of malnutrition screening tool (MST), malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) and nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) as the first step of GLIM framework in comparison to Patients-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) in Chinese ambulatory cancer patients.Methods: A single-center prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Nutritional screening and assessment were performed within 4h after admission to the hospital using a structured questionnaire including MST, MUST, NRS2002, PG-SGA and GLIM, with supplement information of calf circumference (CC) measurement and body composition measurement using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Malnutrition diagnosis made by GLIM framework using MST, MUST or NRS2002 as the first step or without screening step were compared to PG-SGA separately. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and κ values were used to evaluate performance of the screening tools.Results: Of the 562 included patients, Of the participants 62.8% (355/562) were male and 37.2% (210/562) were female, with a male to female radio of 1.69:1. The median age of the patients was 59.0 years (range, 21-82y; interquels range 52.0-65.0y). From the 562 patients included in the study, 41.8% of patients were evaluated as malnutrition (PG-SGA≥4) and 11.9% were diagnosed as severe malnutrition (PG-SGA D). For GLIM criteria, omitting the screening step yielded fair accordance with PG-SGA in diagnosing malnutrition (κ=0.623) and severe malnutrition (κ=0.515). Using MUST as the first step of GLIM framework has better performance (κ=0.614; κ=0.515) than using MST (κ=0.504, κ=0.496) or NRS2002 (κ=0.363, κ=0.503) as the screening tool regardless of severity gradings.Conclusions: Using PG-SGA as the standard, GLIM framework omitting first step has better performance compared with using MST, MUST or NRS2002 as the screening tool. Among the screening tools validated to be used in the first step of GLIM framework, MUST may be the better choice for ambulatory cancer patients.

Download Full-text