scholarly journals Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults

2004 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 799-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Stratton ◽  
Annemarie Hackston ◽  
David Longmore ◽  
Rod Dixon ◽  
Sarah Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

The ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults has been developed for all health care settings and patient groups, but ease of use and agreement with other published tools when screening to identify malnutrition requires investigation. The present study assessed the agreement and the prevalence of malnutrition risk between ‘MUST’ and a variety of other tools in the same patients and compared the ease of using these tools. Groups of patients were consecutively screened using ‘MUST’ and: (1) MEREC Bulletin (MEREC) and Hickson and Hill (HH) tools (fifty gastroenterology outpatients); (2) nutrition risk score (NRS) and malnutrition screening tool (MST; seventy-five medical inpatients); (3) short-form mini nutritional assessment (MNA-tool; eighty-six elderly and eighty-five surgical inpatients); (4) subjective global assessment (SGA; fifty medical inpatients); (5) Doyle undernutrition risk score (URS; fifty-two surgical inpatients). Using ‘MUST’, the prevalence of malnutrition risk ranged from 19–60% in inpatients and 30% in outpatients. ‘MUST’ had ‘excellent’ agreement (κ 0.775–0.893) with MEREC, NRS and SGA tools, ‘fair–good’ agreement (κ 0.551–0.711) with HH, MST and MNA-tool tools and ‘poor’ agreement with the URS tool (κ 0.255). When categorisation of malnutrition risk differed between tools, it did not do so systematically, except between ‘MUST’ and MNA-tool (P=0.0005) and URS (P=0.039). ‘MUST’ and MST were the easiest, quickest tools to complete (3–5 min). The present investigation suggested a high prevalence of malnutrition in hospital inpatients and outpatients (19–60% with ‘MUST’) and ‘fair–good’ to ‘excellent’ agreement beyond chance between ‘MUST’ and most other tools studied. ‘MUST’ was quick and easy to use in these patient groups.

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) Tool for Older Patients Undergoing General Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5860
Author(s):  
Stamatios Kokkinakis ◽  
Maria Venianaki ◽  
Georgia Petra ◽  
Alexandros Chrysos ◽  
Emmanuel Chrysos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Surgery ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Mini Nutritional Assessment ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Postoperative Length ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

The optimal malnutrition screening tool in geriatric surgery has yet to be determined. Herein, we compare two main tools in older patients undergoing general surgery operations. Older patients (>65 years old) who underwent general surgery operations between 2012 and 2017 in a tertiary centre were included. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) were used for nutritional risk assessment. Preoperative variables as well as postoperative outcomes were recorded prospectively. Agreement between tools was determined with the weighted kappa (κ) statistic. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the association of the screening tools with postoperative outcomes. A total of 302 patients (median age 74 years, range: 65–92) were included. A similar number of patients were classified as medium/high risk for malnutrition with the MNA-SF and MUST (26% vs. 36%, p = 0.126). Agreement between the two tools was moderate (weighted κ: 0.474; 95%CI: 0.381–0.568). In the multivariate analysis, MNA-SF was associated significantly with postoperative mortality (p = 0.038) and with postoperative length of stay (p = 0.001). MUST was associated with postoperative length of stay (p = 0.048). The MNA-SF seems to be more consistently associated with postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing general surgery compared with the MUST tool.

scholarly journals ‘Self-screening’ for malnutrition with an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) in hospital outpatients: concurrent validity, preference and ease of use

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. 528-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abbie L. Cawood ◽  
Emily R. Walters ◽  
Sarah K. E. Sharp ◽  
Marinos Elia ◽  
Rebecca J. Stratton
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Electronic Version ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Paper Version ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ◽  
Hospital Outpatients

AbstractSelf-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (‘MUST’) has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of ‘MUST’ and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and electronic versions of ‘MUST’. For the three-category classification of ‘MUST’ (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves ‘at risk’ of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using ‘MUST’ in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has ‘substantial to almost-perfect’ agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based ‘MUST’ self-screening tool.

scholarly journals Risco nutricional em pacientes hospitalizados: comparação de três protocolos de triagem nutricional

Multitemas ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (55) ◽  
pp. 245
Author(s):  
Fabiane La Flor Ziegler Sanches ◽  
Tatiana Ferreira ◽  
Rita de Cássia Avellaneda Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
Universal Screening ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Nutrition Assessment ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
Nrs 2002 ◽  
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ◽  
Nutritional Risk Screening

O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a prevalência de risco nutricional entre adultos e idosos hospitalizados por meio de três protocolos de triagem nutricional. Estudo de caráter transversal com 111 pacientes admitidos em um hospital universitário. Os instrumentos utilizados foram: Nutritional Risk Screening-NRS, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool-MUST, Mini Nutrition Assessment Short Form®-MNA_SF. Do total de pacientes avaliados, 55% (n=61) eram adultos. O risco nutricional esteve presente em 73,0% dos pacientes de acordo com a NRS-2002, 70,3% pela MUST e 76,6% pela MNA-SF. Foi evidente a importância da triagem nutricional, pois houve uma prevalência acima de 70% em risco nutricional de acordo com os três protocolos. Ressalta-se que os protocolos correlacionaram-se fortemente entre si (R= 0,795), apresentando pouca variabilidade entre os métodos. Independente do protocolo utilizado foi possível observar que os pacientes em risco têm maior permanência hospitalar, pior desfecho clínico e consequentemente são mais onerosos para a instituição.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document