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

Abstract

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.

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