177x 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.