Cargando…

Improving nutritional assessment in acute medical admissions at a district general hospital

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition adversely affects clinical outcomes, necessitating a prompt and accurate assessment of nutritional status on admission. A variety of tools exist to aid nutritional assessment, of which the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) is recommended, but remains difficult to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wong, Jeremy J., Tailor, Bhavesh V., Chen, Fangyue, Florance, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9844072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35871369
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JRS-227025
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Malnutrition adversely affects clinical outcomes, necessitating a prompt and accurate assessment of nutritional status on admission. A variety of tools exist to aid nutritional assessment, of which the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) is recommended, but remains difficult to implement in practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this audit was to improve the utilisation of the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) in the Acute Medical Unit (AMU) at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King’s Lynn. Specifically, patients should have a completed and accurate MUST score within 6 hours of arrival to AMU and high-risk patients (MUST score ≥2) should be referred to dieticians within 48 hours of admission. The first cycle was conducted by March 2019 and the second cycle was completed 1 year later to allow assessment of interventions actioned after the first cycle. METHODS: We conducted a two-cycle audit evaluating the MUST completion and dietician referral rate of high-risk patients (defined as MUST ≥2) on the Acute Medical Unit in a district general hospital, with the standards of 80% and 100% respectively. A questionnaire was distributed after the first cycle exploring nurses’ current experience and competence in using MUST. RESULTS: In the first cycle, MUST scores were calculated correctly in 111/150 patients (74%) and 1/9 (11%) high-risk patients were referred to dieticians. After interventions, MUST scores were calculated correctly in 77/101 patients (76%) and 2/4 high-risk patients (50%) were referred to dieticians. The nurses (n = 19) who took part in the questionnaire felt confident in MUST completion, but the average score in an objective assessment was 67%. CONCLUSIONS: As per the literature, the first cycle demonstrated the under-utilisation of MUST in clinical practice. In response, we proposed additional face-to-face training for existing staff, the inclusion of an e-learning module within the staff’s induction, and provision of ward MUST ‘troubleshooting’ booklets. MUST utilisation rates improved upon re-auditing, but not to target standards. We will need to consider potential barriers to sustainable change and implement interventions such as identification of nursing champions to overcome them.