FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2152305431> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2152305431 abstract "Background:  Surveys indicate that malnutrition remains common among hospital patients (Russell & Elia, 2010). It is recommended that all patients be screened on admission and weekly (NICE, 2006). The Malnutrition Universal Screening tool (MUST) is a sensitive and specific screening measure (Kyle et al., 2006). In Homerton Hospital, the nutrition screening round (NSR) ran alongside transition of paper-based screening onto an electronic patient record system (EPR). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a dietitian-led NSR as a method of training staff to use MUST.Methods:  Malnutrition screening was audited on an elderly care ward and an adult rehabilitation unit. The number of MUST scores undertaken within 24 h of admission and the frequency of weekly screening were assessed. Data gathered included the numbers of patients with accurately measured height, weight, body mass index, weight loss and acute disease effect scores. A weekly NSR was then conducted on these two wards alongside consultant ward rounds, with the dietitian carrying out nutritional care and all staff gaining practical experience of MUST by assisting with screening of each patient. After 20 weeks, screening levels were re-audited and, at 24 weeks nursing staff took back full responsibility for MUST screening. A final audit of screening levels took place 1 month after staff on the two designated wards had taken back responsibility for screening.Results:  The initial audit indicated that, of 53 patients, 26 had a paper MUST proforma present. Of 23 patients who were on the wards for >7 days who had a MUST proforma, only one was screened each week as per NICE guidelines. The 20-week mid-intervention audit showed that the number of patients on the wards for ≥1 week with an accurate MUST screen recorded on EPR had increased to 100%. Increased detection of malnutrition led to prompt, effective nutrition support. The final audit at 28 weeks showed sustained screening levels, with all patients on the ward for ≥1 week being accurately screened for malnutrition by ward staff alone.Discussion:  The NSR appeared to target factors identified as being behind low levels of screening, including a low awareness of screening policy and poor screening skills (Porter, et al., 2009).Confidence in carrying out MUST was increased by ‘hands-on’ training in the immediate patient environment. Perceived barriers to screening cited in other research include pressures of workload (Hodge, 2008). The NSR demonstrated that screening was not as time consuming as assumed and that it could be fitted alongside other tasks. Previous studies have suggested training might be targeted toward all clinical staff (Wong & Gandy, 2008). The NSR project supports this finding, demonstrating that the involvement of all members of the multiprofessional team is strongly conducive to embedding MUST within clinical care and as part of weekly ward routine.Conclusions:  A NSR is an effective way of providing practical training in nutritional screening. A NSR raises the ward level profile of screening, encourages it to become routine practice and is a feasible method of increasing frequency of screening in line with policy to enhance patient care.References:  Hodge, A. (2008) An exploratory case study of cancer nurses’ understanding and use of nutritional screening in patients diagnosed with cancer. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 21, 388–389.Kyle, U.G., Kossovsky, M.P., Karsegard, V.L. & Pichard, C. (2006) Comparison of tools for nutritional assessment and screening at hospital admission: a population study. Clin. Nutr. 25, 409–417.NICE (2006) Nutrition Support in Adults. Clinical Guideline 32. London: NICE.Porter, J., Raja, R., Cant, R. & Aroni, R. (2009) Exploring issues influencing the use of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool by nurses in two Australian hospitals. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 22, 203–299.Russell, C. & Elia, M. (2010) Nutrition Screening Survey in the UK and Republic of Ireland in 2010. Redditch: British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.Wong, S. & Gandy, J. (2008) An audit to evaluate the effect of staff training on the use of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 21, 405–406." @default.
• W2152305431 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2152305431 creator A5045226466 @default.
• W2152305431 creator A5061466220 @default.
• W2152305431 creator A5085300312 @default.
• W2152305431 date "2011-07-04" @default.
• W2152305431 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2152305431 title "Increased frequency and accuracy of MUST screening after use of a nutrition screening round" @default.
• W2152305431 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277x.2011.01177_29.x" @default.
• W2152305431 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2152305431 type Work @default.
• W2152305431 sameAs 2152305431 @default.
• W2152305431 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2152305431 countsByYear W21523054312014 @default.
• W2152305431 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2152305431 hasAuthorship W2152305431A5045226466 @default.
• W2152305431 hasAuthorship W2152305431A5061466220 @default.
• W2152305431 hasAuthorship W2152305431A5085300312 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C187212893 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C2779256446 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C3019644165 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C551997983 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C126322002 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C159110408 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C162324750 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C1862650 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C187212893 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C187736073 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C199360897 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C199521495 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C2779256446 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C3019644165 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C41008148 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C512399662 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C551997983 @default.
• W2152305431 hasConceptScore W2152305431C71924100 @default.
• W2152305431 hasLocation W21523054311 @default.
• W2152305431 hasOpenAccess W2152305431 @default.
• W2152305431 hasPrimaryLocation W21523054311 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W1590726013 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W160516784 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W1968841481 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W1971301873 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2025393804 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2044882723 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2046516131 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2056245080 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2070805831 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2092762592 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2130212458 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2168054152 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2318974050 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2321207296 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2765860694 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W2903684114 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W3088522981 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W3132518098 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W3176992655 @default.
• W2152305431 hasRelatedWork W3196701220 @default.
• W2152305431 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2152305431 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2152305431 magId "2152305431" @default.
• W2152305431 workType "article" @default.