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

Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3233/JRS-227025
Jeremy J Wong, Bhavesh V Tailor, Fangyue Chen, Robert Florance
{"title":"Improving nutritional assessment in acute medical admissions at a district general hospital.","authors":"Jeremy J Wong,&nbsp;Bhavesh V Tailor,&nbsp;Fangyue Chen,&nbsp;Robert Florance","doi":"10.3233/JRS-227025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e1/24/jrs-33-jrs227025.PMC9844072.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-227025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
改进地区综合医院急诊病人的营养评估。
背景:营养不良对临床结果有不利影响,需要在入院时及时准确地评估营养状况。存在多种工具来帮助营养评估,其中营养不良普遍筛查工具(MUST)是推荐的,但在实践中仍然难以实施。目的:本次审计的目的是提高营养不良普遍筛查工具(MUST)的利用急性医疗单位(AMU)在伊丽莎白医院,林恩国王。具体而言,患者应在到达AMU的6小时内完成准确的MUST评分,高危患者(MUST评分≥2)应在入院48小时内转诊给营养师。第一个周期于2019年3月进行,第二个周期在一年后完成,以便对第一个周期后采取的干预措施进行评估。方法:对某区综合医院急诊科高危患者(定义为MUST≥2)的MUST完成率和营养师转诊率进行两周期审计,标准分别为80%和100%。第一周期后发放问卷,调查护士目前使用MUST的经验和能力。结果:在第一个周期中,150例患者中有111例(74%)的MUST评分计算正确,1/9(11%)的高危患者被推荐给营养师。干预后,101例患者中有77例(76%)的MUST评分计算正确,2/4的高危患者(50%)被转介给营养师。参加问卷调查的护士(n = 19)对MUST的完成有信心,但客观评估的平均得分为67%。结论:根据文献,第一个周期表明MUST在临床实践中的利用不足。作为回应,我们建议对现有员工进行额外的面对面培训,在员工入职培训中加入一个电子学习模块,并提供病房必须的“故障排除”手册。MUST的使用率在重新审计后有所提高,但没有达到目标标准。我们需要考虑可持续变革的潜在障碍,并实施干预措施,如确定护理冠军,以克服这些障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1