Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWester, Paulinaen_US
dc.contributor.authorAngus, Rebeccaen_US
dc.contributor.authorEaslea, Dayleen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Michelleen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, Benjaminen_US
dc.contributor.authorBisset, Leanneen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:14:00Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:14:00Z
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn1446-6368en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1747-0080.12416en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381816
dc.description.abstractAim Malnutrition is highly prevalent in rehabilitation patients, and screening is important to allow for timely intervention to reduce the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes. We aimed to determine the reliability and validity of the commonly employed malnutrition screening tool by non‐dietitian staff in categorising patients at risk of malnutrition in the rehabilitation setting. Methods This prospective observational cohort study recruited 100 participants on admission to a rehabilitation ward. The malnutrition screening tool was applied by nursing staff and repeated by nutrition assistants. Results were compared to malnutrition as determined by dietitian‐applied subjective global assessment of each patient. Inter‐rater reliability tests were conducted with two dietitians, two nutrition assistants and two nurses independently but simultaneously recording malnutrition screening tool scores on a subgroup of 15 participants. Results Agreement between dietitian‐determined malnutrition and risk as identified by nutrition assistant and nursing staff screening tool application was only modest (64% and 51%, respectively). While both professions met the a priori criteria for acceptable specificity (≥60%), neither met the criterion for adequate sensitivity (≥80%). The inter‐rater reliability of the tool was excellent, with almost perfect agreement (≥0.89) between ward dietitian and nutrition assistants, and moderate to substantial agreement (0.56–0.65) with nursing staff, when compared to a senior dietitian. Conclusions Non‐dietitian staff failed to apply the malnutrition screening tool with sufficient sensitivity in normal ward practice to warrant its use in the rehabilitation setting. Alternative options for identification of malnutrition need to be considered to ensure appropriate treatment.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherWiley Onlineen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom324en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto330en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalNutrition and Dieteticsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume75en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNutrition and Dietetics not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNutrition and Dieteticsen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic Health and Health Servicesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111199en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1111en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1117en_US
dc.subject.keywordsMalnutritionen_US
dc.subject.keywordsNursing staffen_US
dc.subject.keywordsNutrition assistanten_US
dc.subject.keywordsNutrition screeningen_US
dc.subject.keywordsRehabilitationen_US
dc.titleUse of the malnutrition screening tool by non-dietitians to identify at-risk patients in a rehabilitation setting: A validation studyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record