354x Filetype PDF File size 0.55 MB Source: www.hadpg.org
Real World Application:
Meeting Nutrition Screening
Challenges in Older Adults
This webinar is supported by Nestlé Nutrition
Moderator:
Mary Pyper
Healthy Aging DPG
Speaker:
Janet Skates, MS, RD, LDN, FADA
Nutrition Consulting Services
Kingsport, TN
janetskates@yahoo.com
Objectives:
Identify the prevalence of
malnutrition in older adults across
different practice settings
Describe the advantages of using a
validated screening tool
Implement nutrition screening in
individual practice settings
1
Malnutrition in Older Adults
MG/RSA MRT/ 18.01.10 Kaiser et al. Clin Nutr 4( suppl 2):113; 2009 4
Ideal Nutrition Screen
Valid
Reliable
Accurate
Clearly Defined Thresholds
Relevant to Outcomes
Inexpensive
Acceptable to Clients
Easy and Quick to
Administer
Thomas DR,
Nutr Clin Prac 2008;23:383-387
Validity
What is it and why does it matter?
Valid tools actually measure what they claim
to measure
Screen for desired outcomes
Components of validity
Sensitivity
Specificity
Positive predictive value
Negative predictive value
Inter-rater reliability
2
Common Screening Tools
Interactive question
“Which screening tool do you currently use?”
Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)
DETERMINE Checklist
Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST)
Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool
(MUST)
Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index
Nutritional Risk Screening Tool (NRS 2002)
Mini Nutrition Assessment (MNA)®
MNMNAA
DDeeveloped iveloped inn 1990 1990
VaValilidadated fted foor ar aggeess 6 65+5+
Simple, reliable, quiSimple, reliable, quicck k
& & nonon-n-iinnvasvasiiveve
VaValilidadated ated accrrossoss ccaarre se seettittinnggss
Supported bySupported by > 400 > 400
pubpubllicationicationss
MNMNA-A-SSFF
BasBased oed onn the ori the origgiinnaal MNAl MNA®®
UseUsess onl only 6 itemy 6 itemss
QuiQuiccker tool fker tool for clor cliinniical uscal usee
VaValilidadated ited inn a ambulambulattoryory
elderlyelderly pts pts
Guigoz et al., Nutr. Rev. 1996;54:S59-65
Vellas et al., J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:1300-1309
Rubenstein et al., J Gerontol 2001;56:M366-M372
MNAMNAMNAMNA®®®®
PrPrPrProsososos
Pros Cons
IIIdeadeadeal l l NutriNutriNutritttiiiooonnn ScScScreereereennn Limited Use in Clinical Practice
••• Valid Valid Valid aaannnd d d reliablereliablereliable ssscalecalecale Takes too long time
••• AAAccurateccurateccurate Height and/or weight not
••• CleaCleaClearly rly rly defdefdefiiinnnededed ttthrehrehresssholdholdholdsss available
••• IneIneInexxxpppeeensnsnsiveiveive Nutrition screening of
elderly still not embedded in
••• Relevant Relevant Relevant ttto o o ouououtcomtcomtcomeeesss standard clinical practice
••• AAAcceccecceptabptabptablelele ttto o o patiepatiepatiennnttt Lack of awareness and use
in clinical settings
3
The 2008 – 2009
MNA®International Initiative
Í
Í
Í
ÍÍÍ
ÍÍÍ
D. Thomas Í
Í Í M. Kuzuya
Í Í
B. Langkamp‐Henken
Í A. Tsai
Í
K. Charlton R. Visvanathan
Í Í
Aim
®
Make MNA -Short Form more user-friendly
and facilitate more widespread use in geriatric
care
Revalidate the MNA®
Compare with common nutrition assessment criteria
Revalidate MNA® scoring system (cut-off points)
®
Validate the MNA -SF as a stand alone tool
Determine best combination of questions for highest
sensitivity and specificity
Develop valid alternative for BMI
®
Create a scoring system for the MNA -SF to classify
nutritional status identical to full MNA®
The elderly were at widespread risk
for malnutrition.
23%
69%
k 46%
31%
n=4502
Bauer, et al. 2009, IANA
4
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.