Baixe NRS2002 Screening e outras Notas de estudo em PDF para Nutrição, somente na Docsity!
Clinical Nutrition (2003) 22(4): 415– r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0261-5614(03)00098-
SPECIAL ARTICLE
ESPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Screening 2002
J. KONDRUP,n^ S. P. ALLISON,y^ M. ELIA,z^ B.VELLAS,z^ M. PLAUTHy n (^) Rigshospitalet University Hospital Copenhagen, Denmark, yQueen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, zUniversity of Southampton,
Southampton, UK, z^ University Hospital Centre,Toulouse, France, y^ Community Hospital Dessau, Germany (Correspondence to: JK, Nutrition Unit^5711, Rigshospitalet University, 9 Blegdamsvej, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark)
AbstractöAim: To provide guidelines for nutrition risk screening applicable to di¡erent settings (community, hospital, elderly) based on published and validated evidence available until June 2002. Note: These guidelines deliberately make reference to the year 2002 in their title to indicate that this version is based on the evidence available until 2002 and that they need to be updated and adapted to current state of knowledge in the future. In order to reach this goal the Education and Clinical Practice Committee invites and welcomes all criticism and sugges- tions (button for mail to ECPC chairman). r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words: Nutritional Assessment; malnutrition; hos- pital; community
Background
About 30% of all patients in hospital are under- nourished. A large part of these patients are under- nourished when admitted to hospital and in the majority of these, undernutrition develops further while in hospital (1). This can be prevented if special attention is paid to their nutritional care. Other features of the patient’s primary disease are screened routinely and treated (e.g. dehydration, blood pressure, fever), and it is unacceptable that nutritional problems causing significant clinical risk are not identified. Neglect is also beginning to have medico-legal consequences, since an increasing number of cases of nutritional neglect are being brought to the courts. There is every reason, therefore, for hospitals and healthcare organizations to adopt a minimum set of standards in this area. However, the lack of a widely accepted screening system which will detect patients who might benefit clinically from nutritional support is commonly seen as a major limiting factor to improvement. It is the purpose of this document to give simple guidelines as to how undernutrition, or risk for develop- ment of undernutrition, can be detected, by proposing a set of standards which are practicable for general use in patients and clients within present healthcare resources.
Purpose of screening
The purpose of nutritional screening is to predict the probability of a better or worse outcome due to nutritional factors, and whether nutritional treatment
is likely to influence this. Outcome from treatment may be assessed in a number of ways:
- Improvement or at least prevention of deterioration in mental and physical function
- Reduced number or severity of complications of disease or its treatment.
- Accelerated recovery from disease and shortened convalescence.
- Reduced consumption of resources, e.g. length of hospital stay and other prescriptions. The nutritional impairment identified by screening should therefore be relevant to these aims and outcomes and may vary according to circumstances, e.g. age or type of illness. In the community, undernutrition, with or without chronic disease, may be the primary factor determining the mental or physical function of an individual, whereas in hospital or in a nursing home, disease factors assume a greater importance with disease- associated undernutrition assuming an important albeit secondary role. Screening in the community can therefore be focused primarily on nutritional variables based on the results of semi-starvation studies such as those of Ancel Keys and his colleagues in 1950 (2). In hospitals, other aspects of disease need to be considered in combination with purely nutritional measurements in order to deter- mine whether nutritional support is likely to be beneficial. Randomized controlled trials of nutritional support in particular disease groups may therefore provide important evidence on which to base our criteria of nutritional risk.
Methodological considerations The usefulness of screening tools can be evaluated by a number of methods. The predictive validity is of major importance, i.e. that the individual identified to be at
415
risk by the method is likely to obtain a health benefit from the intervention arising from the results of the screening. This can be obtained in various ways, as described for the individual screening tools below. The screening tool must also have a high degree of content validity, i.e. considered to include all relevant components of the problem it is meant to solve. This is usually achieved by involving representatives of those who are going to use it in the process of designing the tool. It must additionally have a high reliability, i.e little inter-observer variation. It must also be practical, i.e. those who are going to use the tool must find it rapid, simple and intuitively purposeful. It should not contain redundant information, e.g. information about vomiting or dysphagia is unnecessary when dietary intake is part of the screening. The etiology of reduced dietary intake belongs to asssessment (see below) or is incorporated into the nutrition care plan. Several other aspects of evaluating screening tools are described in an analysis of 44 nutritional screening tools (3). Finally, a screening tool should be linked to specified protocols for action, e.g. referral of those screened at risk to an expert for more detailed assessment and care plans.
Screening leads to nutritional care
Hospital and healthcare organizations should have a policy and a specific set of protocols for identifying patients at nutritional risk, leading to appropriate nutritional care plans: an estimate of energy and protein requirements including posssible allowance for weight gain, followed by prescription of food, oral supple- ments, tube feeding or parenteral nutrition, or a combination of these. It is suggested that the following course of action be adopted.
- Screening This is a rapid and simple process conducted by admitting staff or community health- care teams. All patients should be screened on admission to hospital or other institutions. The outcome of screening must be linked to defined courses of action: a. The patient is not at risk, but may need to be re-screened at specified intervals, e.g. weekly during hospital stay. b. The patient is at risk and a nutrition plan is worked out by the staff. c. The patient is at risk, but metabolic or functional problems prevent a standard plan being carried out. d. There is doubt as whether the patient is at risk. In the two latter cases, referral should be made to an expert for more detailed assessment.
- Assessment. This is a detailed examination of metabolic, nutritional or functional variables by an expert clinician, dietitian or nutrition nurse. It is a longer process than screening which leads to an
appropriate care plan considering indications, possible side-effects, and, in some cases, special feeding techniques. It is based, like all diagnosis, upon a full history, examination and, where appropriate, laboratory investigations. It will in- clude the evaluation or measurement of the func- tional consequences of undernutrition, such as muscle weakness, fatigue and depression. It involves consideration of drugs that the patient is taking and which may be contributing to the symptoms, and of personal habits such as eating patterns and alcohol intake. It includes gastrointestinal assessment, including dentition, swallowing, bowel function, etc. It necessitates an understanding of the inter- pretation of laboratory tests, e.g. plasma albumin which is more likely to be a measure of disease severity than of malnutrition per se. Calcium, magnesium and zinc levels may be important, and in some cases laboratory measurement of micro- nutrient levels may be appropriate.
- Monitoring and outcome. A process of monitoring and defining outcome should be in place. The effectiveness of the care plan should be monitored by defined measurements and observations, such as recording of dietary intake, body weight and function, and a schedule for detecting possible side- effects. This may lead to alterations in treatment during the natural history of the patient’s condition.
- Communication. Results of screening, assessment and nutrition care plans should be communicated to other healthcare professionals when the patient is transferred, either back into the community or to another institution. When patients are transferred from the community to hospital or vice versa, it is important that the nutritional data and future care plans be communicated.
- Audit. If this process is carried out in a systematic way, it will allow audit of outcomes which may inform future policy decisions.
Although this document will focus mainly on the process of screening, this cannot be considered in isolation and must be linked to the pathway of care described above.
Components of nutritional screening Screening tools are designed to detect protein and energy undernutrition, and/or to predict whether under- nutrition is likely to develop/worsen under the present and future conditions of the patient/client. Therefore, screening tools embody the following four main principles:
- What is the condition now? Height and weight allow calculation of body mass index (BMI). Normal range 20–25, obesity 4 30, borderline underweight 18.5–20, undernutrition o18.5. In cases where it is not possible
416 ESPENGUIDELINES
which indicated that staff and investigators seldomly disagreed about a patient’s risk status. Its reliability was validated by inter-observer variation between a nurse, a dietitian and a physician with a k=0.67. Its practicability was shown by the finding that 99% of 750 newly admitted patients could be screened. The incidence of at-risk patients was about 20% (7).
The elderly: MNA
The purpose of MNA is to detect the presence of undernutrition and the risk of developing undernutrition among the elderly in home-care programmes, nursing homes and hospitals. The prevalence of undernutrition among the elderly may reach significant levels (15–60%) under these circumstances (8). The screening methods mentioned above will detect undernutrition among many elderly patients, but for the frail elderly the MNA screening is more likely to identify risk of developing undernutrition, and undernutrition at an early stage, since it also includes physical and mental aspects that frequently affect the nutritional status of the elderly, as well as a dietary questionnaire. It is in fact a combination of a screening and an assessment tool, since the last part of the form (not reproduced here) is a more detailed exploration of the items in the first part of the form. Evalution. The predictive validity of MNA has been evaluated by demonstrating its association with adverse health outcome (9), social functioning (10), mortality (11, 12) and a higher rate of visits to the general practitioner (13). In a randomized trial of elderly at risk according to MNA, those given oral supplements increased body weight, but not grip strength (14), and in another similar (but small) randomized trial of elderly in a nursing home, the intervention group increased dietary intake but no functional or clinical outcome data were reported (15). The content validity has not been reported. The reliability (inter-observer variation) was estimated, with a k=0.51 (8). The MNA takes o10 min to complete and its practicability has been shown by its use in a large number of studies, see (8).
Children
A universally accepted screening tool for children is not yet available (although guidelines are in preparation under the Chairmanship of Professor Bert Koletzko, Munich). It is already standard practice among paedia- tricians to maintain height and weight charts, allowing calculation of growth velocity which is high- sensitive to nutritional status. Pubertal development is also im- paired during undernutrition.
Other screening systems
In their recent guidelines, the ASPENboard of directors stated that no screening system has been validated with respect to clinical outcome (16). They also suggested that,
in the absence of an outcomes validated approach, a combination of clinical and biochemical parameters should be used to assess the presence of malnutrition. They suggest using the subjective global assessment, SGA (17), which classifies patients subjectively on the basis of data obtained from history and physical examination, since this system has been validated in several ways other than with respect to clinical outcome, e.g. inter-observer variation. However, the lack of a direct connection between the observations and the classification of patients leaves the tool more complex and less focused than desired for rapid screening purposes. An analysis of a total of 44 screening tools for use in hospital and the community (3) indicated that tools were published with insufficient details regarding their intended use and method of derivation, and with an inadequate assessment of their effectiveness. No one tool satisfied a set of criteria regarding scientific merit. The present recommendations by ESPENmay share some of these short-comings, but in view of the massive neglect of nutritional problems in health institutions, and the explicit lack of generally accepted screening tools, the predictive validity given above is considered sufficient to provide a practical and reasonable ap- proach in the light of present knowledge. These recommendations may need to be modified in the light of future experience.
Predictive validity vs meta-analyses of treatment The predictive validity reported here needs to be commented upon in relation to recent meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. Such analyses suggest that nutritional support by the enteral or oral route improves functional capacity and clinical outcome, and reduces length of stay and mortality, e.g. (18, 19). In a recent meta-analysis of studies employing parenteral nutrition (20), it was pointed out that there are inadequate data to assess the efficacy of parenteral nutrition in patients who are severely undernourished, who have highly catabolic disease processes, or who cannot be provided with enteral nutrition for several weeks. These are in fact the patients who most commonly receive supportive par- enteral nutrition now-a-days, and for ethical reasons, there will probably not be randomized trials available in the future either. The majority of studies available deal with the grey area of patients who are less under- nourished/not undernourished and/or are mildly–mod- erately catabolic. With these studies at hand, it was difficult to identify clinical conditions where parenteral nutrition would be clinically effective (20). However, the literature analysis mentioned above (4) suggests that parenteral nutrition is clinically effective in studies of patients who rather more than just fulfill the criteria for being nutritionally at risk. Furthermore, nutrients known to be essential for healthy humans are also essential for patients, and therefore the required documentation is not to confirm
418 ESPENGUIDELINES
the essentiality of nutrients among patients, but rather to define when a certain form of nutritional support is more beneficial than leaving the patient to develop nutritional deficiences. Therefore, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of nutritional support are too simplistic, if performed by analogy with treatment using a new drug. Finally, a nutritional care plan in most cases will involve food, oral supplements, tube feeding and parenteral nutrition, often used interchangeably in the same patient, whereas the majority of randomized trials, and meta-analyses, have dealt with studies of single modality treatments. The predictive validity of a screen- ing tool therefore cannot be directly based on meta- analyses available at present.
References
- McWhirter J P, Pennington C R. Incidence and recognition of malnutrition in hospital. BMJ 1994; 308: 945–
- Keys A, Brozek J, Henschel A et al. The Biology of Human Starvation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1950: 703–748 & 819 and 918
- Jones J M.The methodology of nutritional screening and assess- ment tools. J Hum Nutr Diet 2002; 15: 59–
- Kondrup J, Rasmussen H H, Hamberg O et al. Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr 2003; 22: 321–
- Malnutrition Advisory Group (MAG). MAG—guidelines for Detection and Management of Malnutrition. British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2000, Redditch, UK
- Elia M. Personal communication
- Kondrup J, Johansen N, Plum L M et al. Incidence of nutritional risk and causes of inadequate nutritional care in hospitals. Clin Nutr 2002; 21: 461– 8. Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry P J et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition 1999; 15: 116– 9. Beck A M, Ovesen L, Osler M. The ‘Mini Nutritional Assessment’ (MNA) and the ‘Determine Your Nutritional Health’ Checklist (NSI Checklist) as predictors of morbidity and mortality in an elderly Danish population. Br J Nutr 1999; 81: 31–
- Griep M I, Mets T F, Collys K et al. Risk of malnutrition in retirement homes elderly persons measured by the ‘mini-nutritional assessment’. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M57–M
- Compan B, di Castri A, Plaze J M et al. Epidemiological study of malnutrition in elderly patients in acute, sub-acute and long- term care using the MNA. J Nutr Health Aging 1999; 3: 146–
- Gazzotti C, Albert A, Pepinster A et al. Clinical usefulness of the mini nutritional assessment (MNA) scale in geriatric medicine. J Nutr Health Aging 2000; 4: 176–
- Beck A M, Ovesen L, Schroll M. A six months’ prospective follow- up of 65+-y-old patients from general practice classified according to nutritional risk by the Mini Nutritional Assessment. Eur J Clin Nutr 2001; 55: 1028–
- Lauque S, Arnaud Battandier F, Mansourian R et al. Protein- energy oral supplementation in malnourished nursing-home residents. A controlled trial. Age Ageing 2000; 29: 51–
- Beck A M, Ovesen L, Schroll M. Home-made oral supplement as nutritional support of old nursing home residents, who are undernourished or at risk of undernutrition based on the MNA. A pilot trial. Aging Clin Exp Res 2002; 14: 212–
- ASPENBoard of directors.Guidelines for the use of parenteral, enteral nutrition in adult and pediatrc care. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2002; 26: 9SA–12SA
- Detsky A S, McLaughlin J R, Baker J P et al. What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status? J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987; 11: 8–
- Potter J, Langhorne P, Roberts M. Routine protein energy supple- mentation in adults: systematic review. BMJ 1998; 317: 495–
- Stratton R J, Green C J, Elia M E. Disease Related Malnutrition: An Evidence-based Approach to Treatment. CAB International, Oxford, UK, 2003
- Koretz R L, Lipman T O, Klein S. AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 2001; 121: 970–
OVERALL RISK OF UNDERNUTRITION 0 LOW
1 MEDIUM
2 or more HIGH ROUTINE CLINICAL CARE OBSERVE TREAT Repeat screening Hospital - every week Care Homes - every month Community - every year for special groups, e.g. those >75 y
Hospital - document dietary and fluid intake for 3 days Care Homes (as for hospital) Community - Repeat screening, e.g. from <1 mo to >6 mo (with dietary advice if necessary)
Hospital - refer to dietitian or implement local policies. Generally food first followed by food fortification and supplements Care Homes (as for hospital) Community (as for hospital)
(i) BMI (kg/m 2 ) 0 20. 1 = 18.5-20. 2 18.
(ii) Weight loss in 3-6 months 0 = 5% 1 = 5-10% 2 10%
(i ii) Acute disease effect Add a score of 2 if there has been or is likely to be no or nutritional intake for > 5 days Add scores
≥ ≤
≤ ≥
Can be adapted for special circumstances (e.g. when weight and height cannot be measured or when there are fluid disturbances) using specified alternative measurements including subjective criteria. It also identifies obesity (BMI 4 30 kg/m^2 ).
Appendix
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for adults
CLINICAL NUTRITION 419
A Has food intake declined over the past 3 months due to loss of appetite, digestive problems, chewing or swallowing difficulties? 0=severe loss of appetite 1=moderate loss of appetite 2=no loss of appetite B Weight loss during last months? 0=weight loss greater than 3 kg 1=does not know 2=weight loss between 1 and 3 kg 3=no weight loss C Mobility? 0=bed or chair bound 1=able to get out of bed/chair but does not go out 2=goes out D Has suffered physical stress or acute disease in the past 3 months? 0=yes 2=no E Neuropsychological problems? 0=severe dementia or depression 1=mild dementia 2=no psychological problems F Body Mass Index (BMI) [weight in kg]/[height in m] 0=BMI less than 19 1=BMI 19 to less than 21 2=BMI 21 to less than 23 3=BMI 23 or greater Screening score (total max. 14 points) 12 points or greater Normal—not at risk - no need to complement assessment 11 points or below Possible malnutrition - continue assessment
Initial Screening in Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNAr) for the elderly
CLINICAL NUTRITION 421
