Why can't we come up with a universally accepted screening tool?

-

Anna G's Outcomes Management project is one example of the current problem with nutrition screening tools. Within just one journal search (AND) and just within the first ten or so articles, I found a bunch of research on all sorts of new and existing screen tools.This would be a good thing for your typical nutrition related Dx, the more points of view the better, but these all showed how inconsistent and misused our current repertoire of nutrition screening tools are.

One of the main problems is that nutrition screen tools are clumped in with a number of other admission screening tools; it is easy to see how it can be rushed through by whoever is assigned the task. Ideally, every hospital would have DTRs to do all nutrition screening, but we all know that's a pipe dream.Properly identifying, consistently, whether or not a patient has or is at risk for malnutrition is one of the basics of our job.

Within 4 articles and a poster presentation, at least four different screening tools were discussed. One of the main problems associated with these is that both physicians and nurses use and interpret the tools incorrectly on a regular basis. Identifying at risk patients should be based on a clear and simple process used universally. Based on what I have witnessed at my rotations and what you all have said about your rotations, I don't think any two hospitals in just this area use the same format. No wonder nobody gets it consistently right. One poster presentation even discussed blood albumin levels  as a malnutrition criteria for heaven's sake!

I propose that the Academy set up a practice group and decide on one universal malnutrition screening tool to be used by all medical facilities across the country. They do this for every other important practice area. What could be more important than consistent and accurate malnutrition screening?!

FD



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are All Sugars Created Equal?

-
Image
Are All Sugars Created Equal?  I think one of the most confusing nutrition topics for people is sugar. With so many conflicting stories out there, it’s difficult to separate the facts from the fiction. Not to mention, the types of sugars are endless. How do we know what’s best for our bodies? White or brown sugar? Cane or raw? Should we just go with Stevia instead? Is it even okay to consume artificial sweeteners? Should we avoid foods with high amounts of natural sugar in them? Each answer only seems to lead to another question!  Let’s start off with distinguishing the purpose of sugar in the first place. Do our bodies even need it? The short answer is yes! Sugars are carbohydrates (what we commonly call “carbs”), one of the three main macronutrients that our bodies need for fuel to function and survive. One of the major ways to categorize sugar is by separating the “natural” sugars from the “added” sugars. Natural sugars are, well, naturally found in foods. They give us the energy th
Read more

Milk Mythbusters

-
Image
Just like with any nutrition topic, the facts about milk can become convoluted pretty quickly. Whether you drink milk for the protein, the nutrients, the flavor, or just like to switch it up, there are pros and cons to every kind. Here are some quick nutritional facts about each type to help you decide which is best for you. Animal-Based Milks  Whole Milk: The original diary drink. It gets a bad rap, but what whole milk has going for it, is that it’s in its proper nutritional form. Whole milk contains all of its original fat-soluble vitamins, A, E, D, & K, along with the fat to help you absorb them all. It also has the proper concentrations and ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids, or your omega-3s and omega-6s, so that they are metabolized as they should be. The downside is that whole milk is calorically dense, meaning that a little goes a long way. You don’t need much to get what you need, so just don’t overdo it!  2% Milk: The fat content of 2% milk is about half of that in who
Read more