Validation of the Developed Nutritional Screening Tool for Hospital Patients.
10.4163/kjn.2010.43.2.189
- Author:
Jeong Sook LEE
1
;
Mi Ran CHO
;
Geum Ju LEE
Author Information
1. Nutrition Health Management Center, Kyunghee University East-West Neo Medical Center, Seoul 139-727, Korea. goldwine00@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
nutritional screening tool;
malnutrition;
nutritional assessment
- MeSH:
Hospital Costs;
Humans;
Inpatients;
Length of Stay;
Malnutrition;
Mass Screening;
Nutrition Assessment;
Nutritional Status;
Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:The Korean Journal of Nutrition
2010;43(2):189-196
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Malnutrition has been associated with higher hospital costs, mortality, rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay. Several nutritional screening tools have been developed to identify patients with malnutrition risk. However, many of those require much time and labor to administer and may not be applicable to a Korean population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop nutritional screening tool for Korean inpatients. Then we compare nutritional screening tools that developed and previously described. Seven hundred sixty-four patients at hospital admission were screened nutritional status and classified as well nourished, malnutrition stage 1 or stage 2 by the KNNRS (Kyunghee Neo Nutrition Risk Screening), PG-SGA (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment) and NRS-2002 (Nutritional Risk Screening-2002). The KNNRS, PG-SGA and NRS-2002 respectively classified 28.7%, 51.3%, 48.5% of patients as malnourished status. Compared to the PG-SGA, the KNNRS had sensitivity 60.7% (95% CI 54.2-67.0) and specificity 81.2% (95% CI 75.3-85.2). Agreement was fair between KNNRS and PG-SGA (k = 0.34). Compared to the NRS-2002, the KNNRS had sensitivity 57.8% (95% CI 53.4-60.9) and specificity 64.4% (95% CI 60.2-69.8). Agreement was poor between KNNRS and NRS-2002 (k = 0.18). These result should include that the KNNRS and PGS-GA have clinical relevance and fair concordance. However the rate of malnourished patients by KNNRS were less than by PG-SGA. For more effectivity of nutritional screening and management, the criteria of KNNRS would be better revised.
