schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Is the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?

Abstract Objective To (1) evaluate the association between the use of clinical guidelines and the use of validated screening tools, to (2) evaluate the nutritional screening policy in hospitals, and to (3) examine the association between the use of validated screening tools and a) the prevalence of... Full description

Journal Title: Nutrition (Burbank Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2016, Vol.37, p.104-111
Main Author: Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
Other Authors: Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS , Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
Age
Hum
Quelle: Alma/SFX Local Collection
Publisher: United States: Elsevier Inc
ID: ISSN: 0899-9007
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28359355
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1883179035
title: Is the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?
format: Article
creator:
  • Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
  • Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS
  • Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
subjects:
  • Adult
  • Adults
  • Age
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aging
  • BAK protein
  • Body composition
  • Body composition (biology)
  • Body mass
  • Body Mass Index
  • Body Weight
  • Collection
  • Complications
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
  • Cross sections
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Data acquisition
  • Data collection
  • Databases
  • Diet
  • Dietary supplements
  • Dietitian
  • ELDERLY-PATIENTS
  • Energy
  • ENTERAL NUTRITION
  • ESPEN GUIDELINES
  • Ethics
  • Female
  • Food and nutrition
  • Gastroenterology and Hepatology
  • Geriatrics
  • Gerontology
  • Guideline
  • Guideline Adherence
  • Guidelines
  • Health
  • Health care
  • Health policy
  • Hospital
  • Hospital patients
  • Hospitalization
  • Hospitals
  • Hum
  • Human behavior
  • Humans
  • IMPACT
  • Incidence
  • Indicators
  • Infections
  • International standardization
  • Internet
  • Interventions
  • Inventories
  • LENGTH-OF-STAY
  • Literature reviews
  • Male
  • Malnutrition
  • Malnutrition - diagnosis
  • Malnutrition - epidemiology
  • Mass Screening - methods
  • Medical colleges
  • Medical ethics
  • Medical personnel
  • Medical screening
  • Medical tests
  • Middle Aged
  • MORTALITY
  • NURSES
  • Nursing
  • Nursing care
  • Nutrients
  • Nutrition
  • Nutrition Assessment
  • Nutrition Surveys
  • Nutritional Status
  • Nutritional Support
  • Nutritional therapy
  • Nutritionists
  • Older people
  • Patient assessment
  • Politics
  • PREVALENCE
  • Quality control
  • Quality of care
  • Quality of life
  • Quantitative analysis
  • Questionnaires
  • Referral and Consultation
  • Reliability
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • RISK
  • Risk assessment
  • Screening
  • Side effects
  • Standards
  • Supplementation
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Terminology
  • Therapy
  • Tools
  • Ulcers
  • Undernutrition
  • Wound healing
  • Young Adult
ispartof: Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2016, Vol.37, p.104-111
description: Abstract Objective To (1) evaluate the association between the use of clinical guidelines and the use of validated screening tools, to (2) evaluate the nutritional screening policy in hospitals, and to (3) examine the association between the use of validated screening tools and a) the prevalence of malnutrition and b) nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients. Methods This study was a cross-sectional multi-center survey. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire on three levels: institution (presence of a guideline for malnutrition), department (use of a validated screening tool), and patient level (e.g., malnutrition prevalence). Results 53 hospitals with 5255 patients participated. About 45% of the hospitals indicated that they have guidelines for malnutrition. 38.6% of the departments used validated screening tools as part of a standard procedure. The nutritional status of 74.5% of the patients was screened during admission, mostly on the basis of clinical observation and the patients’ weights. In 21.2% of the patients, a validated screening tool was used. Significant differences between wards with and without validated screening tools were found with regard to malnutrition prevalence (p = 0.002) and the following interventions: referral to a dietitian (p < 0.001), provision of energy-enriched snacks (p = 0.038), adjustment of consistency (food/drinks) (p = 0.004), monitoring of the nutritional intake (p = 0.001), and adjustment of the meal ambiance (p < 0.001). Conclusion Nutritional screening with validated tools in hospitalized patients remains poor. Generally, the nutritional status of patients is screened with unreliable parameters such as clinical observation and BMI. The results of the present study suggest that the use of validated malnutrition screening tools is associated with better nutritional care and lower malnutrition prevalence rates in hospitalized patients.
language: eng
source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
identifier: ISSN: 0899-9007
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0899-9007
  • 1873-1244
url: Link


@attributes
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
RANK2.6405044
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourceidgale_proqu
recordidTN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1883179035
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
galeidA520600826
sourcerecordidA520600826
originalsourceidFETCH-LOGICAL-c605t-3045d5368256133539219087ea273ab6c0754f8fb8d51763f416681f6c55af1e3
addsrcrecordideNqNU01rFTEUHUSxtfoD3EjAjZv3TCaTTAbBUoofhYILdR0ymZu-vM4kzyRTqfjjvdNXK3RRJIsbwjnnnuTcVNVLRteMMvl2uw5zWde4XbN6jeVRdchUy1esbprH1SFVXbfqKG0Pqmc5bymlrJPd0-qgVlx0XIjD6vdZJmUDZJcgQ7BAoiOGXJnRD6bAQCYzYo_ki4-BZJsAgg8XpMQ4EpNztP4G9tOXDemhFEjkDm9GYk0C4gPZxLzzBVV_IXhniodQ8vHz6okzY4YXt_Wo-v7xw7fTz6vzL5_OTk_OV1ZSUVacNmIQXKpaSMa54F3NOqpaMHXLTS8tbUXjlOvVIFgruWuYlIo5aYUwjgE_qt7sdXcp_pghFz35bGEcTYA4Z82U4qztKEofVa_vQbdxTniVG5SgneiaBlHrPerCjKB9cLEkY3ENMHkbAziP5yeippJSVcv_JTRopGEdXwhsT7Ap5pzA6V3yk0nXmlG9hK-3Gh9aL-FrVmssyHl1633uJxjuGH_TRkB7T9RiKEtU6MaPD0pf7pnBJOvznfQ86Wi8tgnPJmMyJm83ZQ7-ClL25VqHUaOb0dubNlm3vaIYjtISo9JNA0r3PXXaYXCiranpHcVu7_bdAIfiykPS2fplOgefwBY9RP-g1_f32Hb0AR2Ml3AN-V-eOiNBf11-yfJJkEprnCv-BzUrDRM
sourcetypeAggregation Database
isCDItrue
recordtypearticle
pqid1885095944
display
typearticle
titleIs the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?
sourceAlma/SFX Local Collection
creatorEglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD ; Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS ; Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
creatorcontribEglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD ; Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS ; Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
descriptionAbstract Objective To (1) evaluate the association between the use of clinical guidelines and the use of validated screening tools, to (2) evaluate the nutritional screening policy in hospitals, and to (3) examine the association between the use of validated screening tools and a) the prevalence of malnutrition and b) nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients. Methods This study was a cross-sectional multi-center survey. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire on three levels: institution (presence of a guideline for malnutrition), department (use of a validated screening tool), and patient level (e.g., malnutrition prevalence). Results 53 hospitals with 5255 patients participated. About 45% of the hospitals indicated that they have guidelines for malnutrition. 38.6% of the departments used validated screening tools as part of a standard procedure. The nutritional status of 74.5% of the patients was screened during admission, mostly on the basis of clinical observation and the patients’ weights. In 21.2% of the patients, a validated screening tool was used. Significant differences between wards with and without validated screening tools were found with regard to malnutrition prevalence (p = 0.002) and the following interventions: referral to a dietitian (p < 0.001), provision of energy-enriched snacks (p = 0.038), adjustment of consistency (food/drinks) (p = 0.004), monitoring of the nutritional intake (p = 0.001), and adjustment of the meal ambiance (p < 0.001). Conclusion Nutritional screening with validated tools in hospitalized patients remains poor. Generally, the nutritional status of patients is screened with unreliable parameters such as clinical observation and BMI. The results of the present study suggest that the use of validated malnutrition screening tools is associated with better nutritional care and lower malnutrition prevalence rates in hospitalized patients.
identifier
0ISSN: 0899-9007
1EISSN: 1873-1244
2DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2016.12.016
3PMID: 28359355
languageeng
publisherUnited States: Elsevier Inc
subjectAdult ; Adults ; Age ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aging ; BAK protein ; Body composition ; Body composition (biology) ; Body mass ; Body Mass Index ; Body Weight ; Collection ; Complications ; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ; Cross sections ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Data acquisition ; Data collection ; Databases ; Diet ; Dietary supplements ; Dietitian ; ELDERLY-PATIENTS ; Energy ; ENTERAL NUTRITION ; ESPEN GUIDELINES ; Ethics ; Female ; Food and nutrition ; Gastroenterology and Hepatology ; Geriatrics ; Gerontology ; Guideline ; Guideline Adherence ; Guidelines ; Health ; Health care ; Health policy ; Hospital ; Hospital patients ; Hospitalization ; Hospitals ; Hum ; Human behavior ; Humans ; IMPACT ; Incidence ; Indicators ; Infections ; International standardization ; Internet ; Interventions ; Inventories ; LENGTH-OF-STAY ; Literature reviews ; Male ; Malnutrition ; Malnutrition - diagnosis ; Malnutrition - epidemiology ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical colleges ; Medical ethics ; Medical personnel ; Medical screening ; Medical tests ; Middle Aged ; MORTALITY ; NURSES ; Nursing ; Nursing care ; Nutrients ; Nutrition ; Nutrition Assessment ; Nutrition Surveys ; Nutritional Status ; Nutritional Support ; Nutritional therapy ; Nutritionists ; Older people ; Patient assessment ; Politics ; PREVALENCE ; Quality control ; Quality of care ; Quality of life ; Quantitative analysis ; Questionnaires ; Referral and Consultation ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; RISK ; Risk assessment ; Screening ; Side effects ; Standards ; Supplementation ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Terminology ; Therapy ; Tools ; Ulcers ; Undernutrition ; Wound healing ; Young Adult
ispartofNutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2016, Vol.37, p.104-111
rights
02017 Elsevier Inc.
1info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
2Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3COPYRIGHT 2017 Elsevier B.V.
4Copyright Elsevier Limited May 1, 2017
lds50peer_reviewed
citedbyFETCH-LOGICAL-c605t-3045d5368256133539219087ea273ab6c0754f8fb8d51763f416681f6c55af1e3
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
thumbnail$$Usyndetics_thumb_exl
backlink$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28359355$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
search
creatorcontrib
0Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
1Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS
2Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
title
0Is the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?
1Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.)
addtitleNutrition
descriptionAbstract Objective To (1) evaluate the association between the use of clinical guidelines and the use of validated screening tools, to (2) evaluate the nutritional screening policy in hospitals, and to (3) examine the association between the use of validated screening tools and a) the prevalence of malnutrition and b) nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients. Methods This study was a cross-sectional multi-center survey. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire on three levels: institution (presence of a guideline for malnutrition), department (use of a validated screening tool), and patient level (e.g., malnutrition prevalence). Results 53 hospitals with 5255 patients participated. About 45% of the hospitals indicated that they have guidelines for malnutrition. 38.6% of the departments used validated screening tools as part of a standard procedure. The nutritional status of 74.5% of the patients was screened during admission, mostly on the basis of clinical observation and the patients’ weights. In 21.2% of the patients, a validated screening tool was used. Significant differences between wards with and without validated screening tools were found with regard to malnutrition prevalence (p = 0.002) and the following interventions: referral to a dietitian (p < 0.001), provision of energy-enriched snacks (p = 0.038), adjustment of consistency (food/drinks) (p = 0.004), monitoring of the nutritional intake (p = 0.001), and adjustment of the meal ambiance (p < 0.001). Conclusion Nutritional screening with validated tools in hospitalized patients remains poor. Generally, the nutritional status of patients is screened with unreliable parameters such as clinical observation and BMI. The results of the present study suggest that the use of validated malnutrition screening tools is associated with better nutritional care and lower malnutrition prevalence rates in hospitalized patients.
subject
0Adult
1Adults
2Age
3Aged
4Aged, 80 and over
5Aging
6BAK protein
7Body composition
8Body composition (biology)
9Body mass
10Body Mass Index
11Body Weight
12Collection
13Complications
14COST-EFFECTIVENESS
15Cross sections
16Cross-Sectional Studies
17Data acquisition
18Data collection
19Databases
20Diet
21Dietary supplements
22Dietitian
23ELDERLY-PATIENTS
24Energy
25ENTERAL NUTRITION
26ESPEN GUIDELINES
27Ethics
28Female
29Food and nutrition
30Gastroenterology and Hepatology
31Geriatrics
32Gerontology
33Guideline
34Guideline Adherence
35Guidelines
36Health
37Health care
38Health policy
39Hospital
40Hospital patients
41Hospitalization
42Hospitals
43Hum
44Human behavior
45Humans
46IMPACT
47Incidence
48Indicators
49Infections
50International standardization
51Internet
52Interventions
53Inventories
54LENGTH-OF-STAY
55Literature reviews
56Male
57Malnutrition
58Malnutrition - diagnosis
59Malnutrition - epidemiology
60Mass Screening - methods
61Medical colleges
62Medical ethics
63Medical personnel
64Medical screening
65Medical tests
66Middle Aged
67MORTALITY
68NURSES
69Nursing
70Nursing care
71Nutrients
72Nutrition
73Nutrition Assessment
74Nutrition Surveys
75Nutritional Status
76Nutritional Support
77Nutritional therapy
78Nutritionists
79Older people
80Patient assessment
81Politics
82PREVALENCE
83Quality control
84Quality of care
85Quality of life
86Quantitative analysis
87Questionnaires
88Referral and Consultation
89Reliability
90Reproducibility of Results
91RISK
92Risk assessment
93Screening
94Side effects
95Standards
96Supplementation
97Surveys and Questionnaires
98Terminology
99Therapy
100Tools
101Ulcers
102Undernutrition
103Wound healing
104Young Adult
issn
00899-9007
11873-1244
fulltexttrue
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2016
recordtypearticle
recordideNqNU01rFTEUHUSxtfoD3EjAjZv3TCaTTAbBUoofhYILdR0ymZu-vM4kzyRTqfjjvdNXK3RRJIsbwjnnnuTcVNVLRteMMvl2uw5zWde4XbN6jeVRdchUy1esbprH1SFVXbfqKG0Pqmc5bymlrJPd0-qgVlx0XIjD6vdZJmUDZJcgQ7BAoiOGXJnRD6bAQCYzYo_ki4-BZJsAgg8XpMQ4EpNztP4G9tOXDemhFEjkDm9GYk0C4gPZxLzzBVV_IXhniodQ8vHz6okzY4YXt_Wo-v7xw7fTz6vzL5_OTk_OV1ZSUVacNmIQXKpaSMa54F3NOqpaMHXLTS8tbUXjlOvVIFgruWuYlIo5aYUwjgE_qt7sdXcp_pghFz35bGEcTYA4Z82U4qztKEofVa_vQbdxTniVG5SgneiaBlHrPerCjKB9cLEkY3ENMHkbAziP5yeippJSVcv_JTRopGEdXwhsT7Ap5pzA6V3yk0nXmlG9hK-3Gh9aL-FrVmssyHl1633uJxjuGH_TRkB7T9RiKEtU6MaPD0pf7pnBJOvznfQ86Wi8tgnPJmMyJm83ZQ7-ClL25VqHUaOb0dubNlm3vaIYjtISo9JNA0r3PXXaYXCiranpHcVu7_bdAIfiykPS2fplOgefwBY9RP-g1_f32Hb0AR2Ml3AN-V-eOiNBf11-yfJJkEprnCv-BzUrDRM
startdate2016
enddate2016
creator
0Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
1Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS
2Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
general
0Elsevier Inc
1Elsevier B.V
2Elsevier Limited
scope
05DI
15DJ
2QVL
3CGR
4CUY
5CVF
6ECM
7EIF
8NPM
9AAYXX
10CITATION
11BSHEE
123V.
137RQ
147RV
157TS
167U7
177X7
187XB
1988C
2088E
218AO
228C1
238FE
248FH
258FI
268FJ
278FK
288G5
29ABUWG
30AN0
31ASE
32AZQEC
33BBNVY
34BENPR
35BHPHI
36C1K
37DWQXO
38FPQ
39FYUFA
40GHDGH
41GNUQQ
42GUQSH
43HCIFZ
44K6X
45K9.
46KB0
47LK8
48M0S
49M0T
50M1P
51M2O
52M7P
53MBDVC
54NAPCQ
55PADUT
56PQEST
57PQQKQ
58PQUKI
59PRINS
60Q9U
617X8
sort
creationdate2016
titleIs the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?
authorEglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD ; Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS ; Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
facets
frbrtype5
frbrgroupidcdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c605t-3045d5368256133539219087ea273ab6c0754f8fb8d51763f416681f6c55af1e3
rsrctypearticles
prefilterarticles
languageeng
creationdate2016
topic
0Adult
1Adults
2Age
3Aged
4Aged, 80 and over
5Aging
6BAK protein
7Body composition
8Body composition (biology)
9Body mass
10Body Mass Index
11Body Weight
12Collection
13Complications
14COST-EFFECTIVENESS
15Cross sections
16Cross-Sectional Studies
17Data acquisition
18Data collection
19Databases
20Diet
21Dietary supplements
22Dietitian
23ELDERLY-PATIENTS
24Energy
25ENTERAL NUTRITION
26ESPEN GUIDELINES
27Ethics
28Female
29Food and nutrition
30Gastroenterology and Hepatology
31Geriatrics
32Gerontology
33Guideline
34Guideline Adherence
35Guidelines
36Health
37Health care
38Health policy
39Hospital
40Hospital patients
41Hospitalization
42Hospitals
43Hum
44Human behavior
45Humans
46IMPACT
47Incidence
48Indicators
49Infections
50International standardization
51Internet
52Interventions
53Inventories
54LENGTH-OF-STAY
55Literature reviews
56Male
57Malnutrition
58Malnutrition - diagnosis
59Malnutrition - epidemiology
60Mass Screening - methods
61Medical colleges
62Medical ethics
63Medical personnel
64Medical screening
65Medical tests
66Middle Aged
67MORTALITY
68NURSES
69Nursing
70Nursing care
71Nutrients
72Nutrition
73Nutrition Assessment
74Nutrition Surveys
75Nutritional Status
76Nutritional Support
77Nutritional therapy
78Nutritionists
79Older people
80Patient assessment
81Politics
82PREVALENCE
83Quality control
84Quality of care
85Quality of life
86Quantitative analysis
87Questionnaires
88Referral and Consultation
89Reliability
90Reproducibility of Results
91RISK
92Risk assessment
93Screening
94Side effects
95Standards
96Supplementation
97Surveys and Questionnaires
98Terminology
99Therapy
100Tools
101Ulcers
102Undernutrition
103Wound healing
104Young Adult
toplevel
0peer_reviewed
1online_resources
creatorcontrib
0Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
1Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS
2Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
collection
0NARCIS
1NARCIS: Datasets
2NARCIS:Publications
3Medline
4MEDLINE
5MEDLINE (Ovid)
6MEDLINE
7MEDLINE
8PubMed
9CrossRef
10Academic OneFile (A&I only)
11ProQuest Central (Corporate)
12Career & Technical Education Database
13Nursing & Allied Health Database
14Physical Education Index
15Toxicology Abstracts
16Health & Medical Collection
17ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
18Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)
19Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
20ProQuest Pharma Collection
21Public Health Database
22ProQuest SciTech Collection
23ProQuest Natural Science Collection
24Hospital Premium Collection
25Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
26ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
27Research Library (Alumni Edition)
28ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
29British Nursing Database
30British Nursing Index
31ProQuest Central Essentials
32Biological Science Collection
33ProQuest Central
34Natural Science Collection
35Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
36ProQuest Central Korea
37British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)
38Health Research Premium Collection
39Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
40ProQuest Central Student
41Research Library Prep
42SciTech Premium Collection
43British Nursing Index
44ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
45Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)
46ProQuest Biological Science Collection
47Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)
48Healthcare Administration Database
49Medical Database
50Research Library
51Biological Science Database
52Research Library (Corporate)
53Nursing & Allied Health Premium
54Research Library China
55ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
56ProQuest One Academic
57ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
58ProQuest Central China
59ProQuest Central Basic
60MEDLINE - Academic
jtitleNutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.)
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
au
0Eglseer, Doris, MSc, RD, PhD
1Halfens, Ruud, PhD, FEANS
2Lohrmann, Christa, PhD, RN, FEANS
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
atitleIs the presence of a validated malnutrition screening tool associated with better nutritional care in hospitalized patients?
jtitleNutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.)
addtitleNutrition
date2016
risdate2016
volume37
spage104
epage111
pages104-111
issn0899-9007
eissn1873-1244
abstractAbstract Objective To (1) evaluate the association between the use of clinical guidelines and the use of validated screening tools, to (2) evaluate the nutritional screening policy in hospitals, and to (3) examine the association between the use of validated screening tools and a) the prevalence of malnutrition and b) nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients. Methods This study was a cross-sectional multi-center survey. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire on three levels: institution (presence of a guideline for malnutrition), department (use of a validated screening tool), and patient level (e.g., malnutrition prevalence). Results 53 hospitals with 5255 patients participated. About 45% of the hospitals indicated that they have guidelines for malnutrition. 38.6% of the departments used validated screening tools as part of a standard procedure. The nutritional status of 74.5% of the patients was screened during admission, mostly on the basis of clinical observation and the patients’ weights. In 21.2% of the patients, a validated screening tool was used. Significant differences between wards with and without validated screening tools were found with regard to malnutrition prevalence (p = 0.002) and the following interventions: referral to a dietitian (p < 0.001), provision of energy-enriched snacks (p = 0.038), adjustment of consistency (food/drinks) (p = 0.004), monitoring of the nutritional intake (p = 0.001), and adjustment of the meal ambiance (p < 0.001). Conclusion Nutritional screening with validated tools in hospitalized patients remains poor. Generally, the nutritional status of patients is screened with unreliable parameters such as clinical observation and BMI. The results of the present study suggest that the use of validated malnutrition screening tools is associated with better nutritional care and lower malnutrition prevalence rates in hospitalized patients.
copUnited States
pubElsevier Inc
pmid28359355
doi10.1016/j.nut.2016.12.016