M Laporte1, H H Keller2, H Payette3, J P Allard4, D R Duerksen5, P Bernier6, K Jeejeebhoy7, L Gramlich8, B Davidson9, E Vesnaver10, A Teterina4. 1. Clincal Nutrition Department, Vitalité Health Network, Campbellton Regional Hospital, Campbellton, New Brunswick, Canada. 2. Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 3. Research Center on Aging, Health and Social Services Centre, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, University Hospital Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, St-Boniface Hospital, University of Manitoba, Winnepig, Manitoba, Canada. 6. Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 9. Canadian Malnutrition Task Force, Canadian Nutrition Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Nutrition screening should be initiated on hospital admission by non-dietitians. This research aimed to validate and assess the reliability of the Canadian Nutrition Screening Tool (CNST) in the 'real-world' hospital setting. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Adult patients were admitted to surgical and medical wards only (no palliative patients). Study 1--Nutrition Care in Canadian Hospitals (n=1014): development of the CNST (3 items: weight loss, decrease food intake, body mass index (BMI)) and exploratory assessment of its criterion and predictive validity. Study 2--Inter-rater reliability and criterion validity assessment of the tool completed by untrained nursing personnel or diet technician (DT) (n=150). Subjective Global Assessment performed by site coordinators was used as a gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: Study 1: The CNST completed by site coordinators showed good sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (74.8%). Study 2: In the subsample of untrained personnel (160 nurses; one DT), tool's reliability was excellent (Kappa=0.88), sensitivity was good (>90%) but specificity was low (47.8%). However, using a two-item ('yes' on both weight change and food intake) version of the tool improved the specificity (85.9%). BMI was thus removed to promote feasibility. The final two-item tool (study 1 sample) has a good predictive validity: length of stay (P<0.001), 30-day readmission (P=0.02; X(2) 5.92) and mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The simple and reliable CNST shows good sensitivity and specificity and significantly predicts adverse outcomes. Completion by several untrained nursing personnel confirms its utility in the nursing admission assessment.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Nutrition screening should be initiated on hospital admission by non-dietitians. This research aimed to validate and assess the reliability of the Canadian Nutrition Screening Tool (CNST) in the 'real-world' hospital setting. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Adult patients were admitted to surgical and medical wards only (no palliative patients). Study 1--Nutrition Care in Canadian Hospitals (n=1014): development of the CNST (3 items: weight loss, decrease food intake, body mass index (BMI)) and exploratory assessment of its criterion and predictive validity. Study 2--Inter-rater reliability and criterion validity assessment of the tool completed by untrained nursing personnel or diet technician (DT) (n=150). Subjective Global Assessment performed by site coordinators was used as a gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: Study 1: The CNST completed by site coordinators showed good sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (74.8%). Study 2: In the subsample of untrained personnel (160 nurses; one DT), tool's reliability was excellent (Kappa=0.88), sensitivity was good (>90%) but specificity was low (47.8%). However, using a two-item ('yes' on both weight change and food intake) version of the tool improved the specificity (85.9%). BMI was thus removed to promote feasibility. The final two-item tool (study 1 sample) has a good predictive validity: length of stay (P<0.001), 30-day readmission (P=0.02; X(2) 5.92) and mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The simple and reliable CNST shows good sensitivity and specificity and significantly predicts adverse outcomes. Completion by several untrained nursing personnel confirms its utility in the nursing admission assessment.
Authors: Min-Lin Wu; Mary D Courtney; Lillie M Shortridge-Baggett; Kathleen Finlayson; Elisabeth A Isenring Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Su Lin Lim; Emily Ang; Yet Li Foo; Lian Ye Ng; Chung Yan Tong; Maree Ferguson; Lynne Daniels Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Floor Neelemaat; Judith Meijers; Hinke Kruizenga; Hanne van Ballegooijen; Marian van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Sissi Cao; Rahim Moineddin; Marcelo L Urquia; Fahad Razak; Joel G Ray Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Shail Rawal; Janice L Kwan; Fahad Razak; Allan S Detsky; Yishan Guo; Lauren Lapointe-Shaw; Terence Tang; Adina Weinerman; Andreas Laupacis; S V Subramanian; Amol A Verma Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: H Keller; M Laporte; H Payette; J Allard; P Bernier; D Duerksen; L Gramlich; K Jeejeebhoy Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Chelsia Gillis; Leslee Hasil; Popi Kasvis; Neil Bibby; Sarah J Davies; Carla M Prado; Malcolm A West; Clare Shaw Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2021-06-24