Reliability of Patient-Led Screening with the Malnutrition Screening Tool: Agreement between Patient and Health Care Professional Scores in the Cancer Care Ambulatory Setting

Is self-screening for 'at risk of malnutrition' feasible in a home setting?

INTRODUCTION

Despite malnutrition being established as a well-known risk for postoperative complications, the lack of screening for nutritional risk remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate whether self-screening for nutritional risk prior to surgery is feasible in a home setting and if it will increase number of patients screened for nutritional risk, and secondly, to compare their screening results with the "in-hospital assessments" conducted by healthcare professionals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study involving patients from six randomly selected surgical wards at two Norwegian hospitals as a part of the "Feasibility study of implementing the surgical Patient Safety Checklist the (PASC)". This checklist included a self-reported screening tool based on the Nutritional Risk Screening tool (NRS 2002) to identify "at risk of malnutrition" in patients that will undergo surgery the next 3 months or less. The original screening tool (NRS 2002) was used as a standard routine to identify "at risk of malnutrition" by healthcare professionals at hospital. The interrater reliability between these results was investigated using Fleiss multi rater Kappa with overall agreement and reported with Landis and Koch's grading system (poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and almost perfect).

RESULTS

Out of 215 surgical patients in the home setting, 164 (76.7%) patients completed the self-reported screening tool. A total of 123 (57.2%) patients were screened in-hospital, of whom 96 (44.7%) prior to surgery and 96 (44.7%) were screened both at hospital (pre- and post-surgery) and at home. Self-screening at home improved malnutrition screening participation by 71.9% compared to hospital screening prior to surgery (165 (76.7%) and 96 (44.7%), respectively) and by 34.1% compared to pre- and postoperative in-hospital screening, 165 (76.7%) and 123 (57.2%), respectively). The degree of agreement between patients identified to be "at risk of malnutrition" by the self-reported screening tool and healthcare professionals was poor (κ = - 0.04 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.16), however, the degrees of agreement between the patients and healthcare professionals answers to the initial NRS 2002 questions "low BMI", "weight loss", and "reduced food intake" were almost perfect (κ = 1.00 (95% CI: 0,82, 1.18)), moderate (κ = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.75)), and slight (κ = 0.08 (95% CI: - 0.10, 0.25) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Three out of four patients completed the self-screening form and the preoperative screening rate improved with 70%. Preoperatively self-screening in a home setting may be a feasible method to increase the number of elective surgical patients screened for risk of malnutrition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03105713. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03105713.

Patient-Led, Technology-Assisted Malnutrition Risk Screening in Hospital: A Feasibility Study

Malnutrition risk screening is crucial to identify at-risk patients in hospitals; however, screening rates can be suboptimal. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and potential cost-effectiveness of patient-led, technology-assisted malnutrition risk screening. A prospective multi-methods study was conducted in a 750-bed public hospital in Australia. Patients were recruited from seven wards and asked to complete an electronic version of the Malnutrition Screening Tool (e-MST) on bedside computer screens. Data were collected on feasibility, acceptability, and cost. Feasibility data were compared to pre-determined criteria on recruitment (≥50% recruitment rate) and e-MST completion (≥75% completion rate). Quantitative acceptability (survey) data were analyzed descriptively. Patient interview data were analyzed thematically. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of the health service using a decision tree analytic model. Both feasibility criteria were met; the recruitment rate was 78% and all 121 participants (52% male, median age 59 [IQR 48-69] years) completed the e-MST. Patient acceptability was high. Patient-led e-MST was modeled to save $3.23 AUD per patient and yield 6.5 more true malnutrition cases (per 121 patients) with an incremental cost saving per additional malnutrition case of 0.50 AUD. Patient-led, technology-assisted malnutrition risk screening was found to be feasible, acceptable to patients, and cost-effective (higher malnutrition yield and less costly) compared to current practice at this hospital.

Applicability of five nutritional screening tools in Chinese patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most appropriate nutritional risk screening tool for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, five nutritional screening tools, including the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Short Form of Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) and Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), were employed to evaluate the nutritional risk at admission and short-term clinical outcome prediction.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A comprehensive affiliated hospital of a university in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.

PARTICIPANTS

301 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were continuously recruited to complete the study from October 2020 to May 2021.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Within 48 hours of hospital admission, five nutritional screening tools were used to measure the nutritional risk and to determine their relationship with postoperative short-term clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The nutritional risk assesed by the five tools ranged from 25.2% to 46.2%. Taking the Subject Global Assessment as the diagnostic standard, MNA-SF had the best consistency (κ=0.570, p<0.001) and MST had the highest sensitivity (82.61%). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis after adjusting confounding factors showed that the NRS 2002 score ≥3 (OR 2.400, 95% CI 1.043 to 5.522) was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications and was the strongest predictor of postoperative complications (area under the curve 0.621, 95% CI 0.549 to 0.692). The scores of NRS 2002 (r=0.131, p<0.001), MNA-SF (r=0.115, p<0.05) and NRI (r=0.187, p<0.05) were poorly correlated with the length of stay. There was no correlation between the five nutritional screening tools and hospitalisation costs (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the other four nutritional screening tools, we found that NRS 2002 is the most appropriate nutritional screening tool for Chinese patients with colorectal cancer.

Comparation of different malnutrition screening tools according to GLIM criteria in cancer outpatients

BACKGROUND

Many studies have assessed different malnutrition screening tools in oncologic patients. However, very few have been carried out using the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition. The objective of our study is to compare the most recommended screening tools with respect to the new GLIM criteria for malnutrition in cancer patients.

METHODS

Observational, cross-sectional, and single-center study carried out at the Medical Oncology Department at the Lozano Blesa Hospital in Zaragoza. We recruited 165 patients with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract, colorectal, and head-and-neck region undergoing outpatient treatment. All of them received MST, MUST, Nutriscore, MNA and CONUT screening tools, as well as the GLIM diagnostic criteria, which was used as the gold standard.

RESULTS

MNA-SF showed the best sensitivity (0.99) and lowest specificity while CONUT had the best specificity (0.89) and lowest sensitivity to detect cancer-related malnutrition. We observed high variability in the diagnostic capabilities of Nutriscore when tumor location was considered, reducing sensitivity in patients with colorectal cancer compared to those with tumors of the upper-gastrointestinal-tract or head-and-neck location (0.25, 0.83, and 0.91 respectively). The highest index of agreement between the screening tools was found between MST, MUST and Nutriscore tests. Regarding the GLIM criteria, the highest agreement index was presented by MUST tool (0.66), while CONUT presented the lowest (0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Selecting the screening tool according to the type of cancer and its location may allow us to optimize its use and increase its performance, exploiting the advantages of each of them in the different populations.

Patient, family and carer experiences of nutritional screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for nutritional risk screening of all inpatients, outpatients and care home residents, as well as work to assess clinician's experiences and the validity of tools, little attention has been paid to the experiences of patients undergoing nutritional screening. This review aims to synthesise systematically the current evidence regarding nutritional risk screening with respect to the experiences and views of patients, their families and carers.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and British Nursing Database (inception - July 2019); with screening terms related to malnutrition, screening tools and experience. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and then quality-appraised. Qualitative papers and quantitative surveys were included. A narrative review of surveys and a thematic framework synthesis of interviews were used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Nine studies, including five qualitative interview papers, were included. Qualitative and quantitative study results were combined using a matrix chart to allow comparison. Surveyed participants reported processes of nutritional screening as acceptable. Three key themes emerged from qualitative data: (i) experience of nutritional screening; (ii) misunderstanding of malnutrition: of causes, role of screening and poor self-perception of risk; and (iii) barriers to and opportunities for change.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the screening process is acceptable, patients' misunderstanding and poor knowledge regarding causes and consequences of malnutrition result in reduced risk perception and disbelief or disregard of nutritional screening results. Findings should inform policy and clinical practice, as well as highlight the known paucity of data regarding the effectiveness of screening on clinical outcomes.

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia: Position statement on cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia

This position statement describes the recommendations of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) regarding management of cancer‐related malnutrition and sarcopenia. A multidisciplinary working group completed a review of the literature, focused on evidence‐based guidelines, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses, to develop recommendations for the position statement. National consultation of the position statement content was undertaken through COSA members. All people with cancer should be screened for malnutrition and sarcopenia in all health settings at diagnosis and as the clinical situation changes throughout treatment and recovery. People identified as “at risk” of malnutrition or with a high‐risk cancer diagnosis or treatment plan should have a comprehensive nutrition assessment; people identified as “at risk” of sarcopenia should have a comprehensive evaluation of muscle status using a combination of assessments for muscle mass, muscle strength and function. All people with cancer‐related malnutrition and sarcopenia should have access to the core components of treatment, including medical nutrition therapy, targeted exercise prescription and physical and psychological symptom management. Treatment for cancer‐related malnutrition and sarcopenia should be individualised, in collaboration with the multidisciplinary team (MDT), and tailored to meet needs at each stage of cancer treatment. Health services should ensure a broad range of health care professionals across the MDT have the skills and confidence to recognise malnutrition and sarcopenia to facilitate timely referrals and treatment. The position statement is expected to provide guidance at a national level to improve the multidisciplinary management of cancer‐related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

Malnutrition Screening and Assessment in the Cancer Care Ambulatory Setting: Mortality Predictability and Validity of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short form (PG-SGA SF) and the GLIM Criteria

Background: A valid malnutrition screening tool (MST) is essential to provide timely nutrition support in ambulatory cancer care settings. The aim of this study is to investigate the validity of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) and the new Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria as compared to the reference standard, the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study including 246 adult ambulatory patients with cancer receiving in-chair intravenous treatment at a cancer care centre in Australia. Anthropometrics, handgrip strength and patient descriptive data were assessed. Nutritional risk was identified using MST and PG-SGA SF, nutritional status using PG-SGA and GLIM. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive values and kappa (k) were analysed. Associations between malnutrition and 1-year mortality were investigated by Cox survival analyses. Results: A PG-SGA SF cut-off score ≥5 had the highest agreement when compared with the PG-SGA (Se: 89%, Sp: 80%, k = 0.49, moderate agreement). Malnutrition risk (PG-SGA SF ≥ 5) was 31% vs. 24% (MST). For malnutrition according to GLIM, the Se was 76% and Sp was 73% (k = 0.32, fair agreement) when compared to PG-SGA. The addition of handgrip strength to PG-SGA SF or GLIM did not improve Se, Sp or agreement. Of 100 patients who provided feedback, 97% of patients found the PG-SGA SF questions easy to understand, and 81% reported that it did not take too long to complete. PG-SGA SF ≥ 5 and severe malnutrition by GLIM were associated with 1-year mortality risk. Conclusions: The PG-SGA SF and GLIM criteria are accurate, sensitive and specific malnutrition screening and assessment tools in the ambulatory cancer care setting. The addition of handgrip strength tests did not improve the recognition of malnutrition or mortality risk.

Awareness, perceptions and practices regarding cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia: a survey of cancer clinicians

PURPOSE

Cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia have severe negative consequences including reduced survival and reduced ability to complete treatment. This study aimed to determine the awareness, perceptions and practices of Australian oncology clinicians regarding malnutrition and sarcopenia in people with cancer.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey of Australian cancer clinicians was undertaken between November 2018 and January 2019. The 30-item online purpose-designed survey was circulated through professional organizations and health services.

RESULTS

The 111 participants represented dietetic (38%), nursing (34%), medical (14%) and other allied health (14%) clinicians. Overall, 86% and 88% clinicians were aware of accepted definitions of malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Perception of responsibility for identification of these conditions varied across participants, although 93% agreed this was a component of their role. However, 21% and 43% of clinicians had limited or no confidence in their ability to identify malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively. Common barriers to the identification and management of malnutrition were access to the tools or skills required and a lack of services to manage malnourished patients. Common barriers to identification of sarcopenia were lack of confidence and lack of services to manage sarcopenic patients. Enablers for identification and management of malnutrition and sarcopenia were variable; however, training and protocols for management ranked highly.

CONCLUSION

While awareness of the importance of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia are high, participants identified substantial barriers to delivering optimal nutrition care. Guidance at a national level is recommended to strengthen the approach to management of cancer-related malnutrition and sarcopenia.

Assessing the Concurrent Validity and Interrater Reliability of Patient-Led Screening Using the Malnutrition Screening Tool in the Ambulatory Cancer Care Outpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of malnutrition in cancer patients is reported as high as 65%; however, malnutrition screening is often substandard. The Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) has been validated for use by health care professionals to detect at-risk patients; however, there is a gap in the literature regarding validation of patient-led MST screening.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the concurrent validity of patient-led MST against the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the interrater reliability of patient-led MST against dietitian-led MST in patients attending ambulatory cancer care services for chemotherapy or supportive treatments.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

A single-site diagnostic accuracy study of 201 patients between May and June 2017 attending the ambulatory cancer care setting at an Australian metropolitan tertiary hospital in Queensland.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome measures were concurrent validity and interrater reliability of MST scores as determined by patients (patient-MST), dietitians (dietitian-MST), and SGA as completed by the dietitian.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Concurrent validity of patient-led MST scores against the SGA was determined using specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Interrater reliability of patient-MST and dietitian-MST was assessed using κ coefficient.

RESULTS

The ability of the patient-led MST scores (0 to 1 vs 2 to 5) to indicate nutrition status was found to have a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI 81% to 99%), a specificity of 86% (95% CI 79% to 91%), and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96). The positive predictive value was 59% (95% CI 45% to 71%), and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI 95% to 100%). A weighted κ of 0.83 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.87) between patient-MST and dietitian-MST was found.

CONCLUSION

Patient-led MST screening is a reliable and valid measure that can accurately identify ambulatory cancer care patients as at risk or not at risk of malnutrition.

Risk of malnutrition and emotional distress as factors affecting health-related quality of life in patients with resected cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study analyzes the prevalence of malnutrition, depression, anxiety, and somatization and which factor has the biggest effect on quality of life (QoL) in individuals with resected cancer.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted among 747 participants. Participants completed the EORTC-QLQ30, MST, and BSI-18 questionnaires.

RESULTS

Prevalence for risk of malnutrition, depression, anxiety, and somatization were 36.4%, 35.5%, 35.2%, and 48.8%, respectively. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that malnutrition risk, somatization, depression, and anxiety accounted for 50.8% of the variance in functional scale, 45.3% in symptom scale, and 52.2% in global health. Malnutrition, somatization, depression, and anxiety displayed high explanatory power on all health-related QoL (HRQoL) scales.

CONCLUSION

The risk of malnutrition and psychological symptoms is strongly associated with HRQoL in cancer patients; thus, medical oncologists should develop effective interventions that contribute to lowering the risk of malnutrition and psychological distress, thereby improving subjects' HRQoL before initiating adjuvant chemotherapy.