Cargando…

Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study

BACKGROUND: Disease‐related‐malnutrition predicts poor clinical outcomes in elderly patients, and screening is pivotal for identifying patients at nutritional risk. The present study aimed to investigate nutrition screening rates in electronic patient records and validate the scores given. A seconda...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomsen, Tina Krogh, Pedersen, Jette Lindegaard, Sloth, Bente, Damsgaard, Else Marie, Rud, Charlotte Lock, Hvas, Christian Lodberg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35509207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13025
_version_ 1785021681073389568
author Thomsen, Tina Krogh
Pedersen, Jette Lindegaard
Sloth, Bente
Damsgaard, Else Marie
Rud, Charlotte Lock
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
author_facet Thomsen, Tina Krogh
Pedersen, Jette Lindegaard
Sloth, Bente
Damsgaard, Else Marie
Rud, Charlotte Lock
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
author_sort Thomsen, Tina Krogh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Disease‐related‐malnutrition predicts poor clinical outcomes in elderly patients, and screening is pivotal for identifying patients at nutritional risk. The present study aimed to investigate nutrition screening rates in electronic patient records and validate the scores given. A secondary aim was to investigate whether the proportion of patients at risk differed between patients where screening was documented and those where no screening was documented. METHODS: This cross‐sectional observational study was conducted in a Danish university hospital during November 2020. Patients aged 65 years or more admitted to a medical department were included. The Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS‐2002) tool was used to identify patients at nutritional risk, both in routine clinical care, where data were collected retrospectively, and during a validation process in a random patient sample, where data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: In total, 817 patients were admitted for more than 24 h. Of these, an NRS‐2002 score was documented in 294 (36%), among whom 177 (60%) were at nutritional risk. In 146 patients where no score was documented, 88 (60%) were at risk. Validation was possible in 91 patients where a record‐based score and a validated score were documented. The specificity of the record‐based score was 100%, whereas the sensitivity was 75%, indicating that routine screening underestimated nutritional risk (p < 0.001, proportion difference 19%; 95% confidence interval = 10%–28%). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic documentation does not solve issues about compliance with nutritional risk screening. In patients where screening was not documented, the occurrence of nutritional risk was similar, indicating that omission of screening is not related to the score.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10084170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100841702023-04-11 Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study Thomsen, Tina Krogh Pedersen, Jette Lindegaard Sloth, Bente Damsgaard, Else Marie Rud, Charlotte Lock Hvas, Christian Lodberg J Hum Nutr Diet Nutritional Support and Assessment BACKGROUND: Disease‐related‐malnutrition predicts poor clinical outcomes in elderly patients, and screening is pivotal for identifying patients at nutritional risk. The present study aimed to investigate nutrition screening rates in electronic patient records and validate the scores given. A secondary aim was to investigate whether the proportion of patients at risk differed between patients where screening was documented and those where no screening was documented. METHODS: This cross‐sectional observational study was conducted in a Danish university hospital during November 2020. Patients aged 65 years or more admitted to a medical department were included. The Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS‐2002) tool was used to identify patients at nutritional risk, both in routine clinical care, where data were collected retrospectively, and during a validation process in a random patient sample, where data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: In total, 817 patients were admitted for more than 24 h. Of these, an NRS‐2002 score was documented in 294 (36%), among whom 177 (60%) were at nutritional risk. In 146 patients where no score was documented, 88 (60%) were at risk. Validation was possible in 91 patients where a record‐based score and a validated score were documented. The specificity of the record‐based score was 100%, whereas the sensitivity was 75%, indicating that routine screening underestimated nutritional risk (p < 0.001, proportion difference 19%; 95% confidence interval = 10%–28%). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic documentation does not solve issues about compliance with nutritional risk screening. In patients where screening was not documented, the occurrence of nutritional risk was similar, indicating that omission of screening is not related to the score. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-18 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10084170/ /pubmed/35509207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13025 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Dietetic Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Nutritional Support and Assessment
Thomsen, Tina Krogh
Pedersen, Jette Lindegaard
Sloth, Bente
Damsgaard, Else Marie
Rud, Charlotte Lock
Hvas, Christian Lodberg
Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title_full Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title_fullStr Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title_short Nutritional risk screening in a Danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: A cross‐sectional study
title_sort nutritional risk screening in a danish university hospital is insufficient and may underestimate nutritional risk: a cross‐sectional study
topic Nutritional Support and Assessment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10084170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35509207
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13025
work_keys_str_mv AT thomsentinakrogh nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy
AT pedersenjettelindegaard nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy
AT slothbente nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy
AT damsgaardelsemarie nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy
AT rudcharlottelock nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy
AT hvaschristianlodberg nutritionalriskscreeninginadanishuniversityhospitalisinsufficientandmayunderestimatenutritionalriskacrosssectionalstudy