Twenty years ago, ESPEN published its “Guidelines for nutritional screening 2002”, with the note that these guidelines were based on the evidence available until 2002, and that they needed to be updated and adapted to current state of knowledge in the future. Twenty years have passed, and tremendous progress has been made in the field of malnutrition risk screening. Many screening tools have been developed and validated for different patient groups and different health care settings. Some countries even have introduced mandatory screening for malnutrition at admission to hospital. Yet, changes in society and healthcare require a reflection on current practice and policies regarding malnutrition risk screening. In this opinion paper, we share our perspectives on malnutrition risk screening in the twenty-twenties, addressing the changing and varying profile of the malnourished individual, the goals of screening and screening tools (i.e., preventive or reactive), the construct of malnutrition risk (i.e., screening for risk factors or screening for existing malnutrition), and screening alongside a patient's journey.
DOCUMENT
Aims and objectives: To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP). Background: Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed. Results: Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP. Conclusion: The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising. Relevance to clinical practice: The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.
DOCUMENT
This study evaluates the concurrent validity of five malnutrition screening tools to identify older hospitalized patients against the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria as limited evidence is available. The screening tools Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Mini Nutritional Assessment—Short Form (MNA-SF), and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment—Short Form (PG-SGA-SF) with cut-offs for both malnutrition (conservative) and moderate malnutrition or risk of malnutrition (liberal) were used. The concurrent validity was determined by the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the level of agreement by Cohen’s kappa. In total, 356 patients were included in the analyses (median age 70 y (IQR 63–77); 54% male). The prevalence of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria without prior screening was 42%. The conservative cut-offs showed a low-to-moderate sensitivity (32–68%) and moderate-to-high specificity (61–98%). The PPV and NPV ranged from 59 to 94% and 67–86%, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa showed poor agreement (k = 0.21–0.59). The liberal cut-offs displayed a moderate-to-high sensitivity (66–89%) and a low-to-high specificity (46–95%). The agreement was fair to good (k = 0.33–0.75). The currently used screening tools vary in their capacity to identify hospitalized older patients with malnutrition. The screening process in the GLIM framework requires further consideration.
DOCUMENT
Voor u ligt de wetenschappelijke onderbouwing van de Richtlijn Somatische screening bij patiënten met een ernstige psychische aandoening (2015). Het doel van deze richtlijn is om met name verpleegkundigen te ondersteunen bij de algemene somatische screening van patiënten in de ggz met een ernstige psychische aandoening (EPA) en de te ondernemen vervolgactiviteiten. Somatische screening is zowel klinisch als maatschappelijk zeer relevant, omdat de gezondheidsproblemen van deze patiënten groot zijn en het zorgaanbod er maar beperkt op aansluit. De richtlijn is ontwikkeld voor beroepsgroepen die zorg verlenen aan mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening: verpleegkundigen, verpleegkundig specialisten, sociaal-psychiatrisch verpleegkundigen (SPV’en), consultatief-psychiatrisch verpleegkundigen, psychologen, psychiaters, klinisch geriaters, artsen somatisch werkzaam in de ggz, internisten in de ggz, huisartsen, POH-ggz, physician assistants in de ggz, psychomotorisch therapeuten, fysiotherapeuten, diëtisten, sociotherapeuten, ergotherapeuten en ggz-agogen. Dit rapport biedt achtergrondinformatie voor alle zorgprofessionals, zorgmanagers, kwaliteitsmedewerkers en alle anderen die betrokken zijn bij de algemene somatische zorg voor mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening en die meer willen weten over de totstandkoming van deze richtlijn. In deze onderbouwing is beschikbare wetenschappelijke kennis samengevat en wordt aangegeven welke overige overwegingen, onder meer vanuit praktijkkennis en voorkeuren vanuit patiënten- en familieperspectief, van belang waren bij het formuleren van de richtlijnaanbevelingen. Deze richtlijn is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke evidentie, grijze literatuur, de praktijkkennis van professionals en voorkeuren vanuit patiënten- en familieperspectief. Het ontwikkeltraject bestond uit een knelpuntanalyse, een systematische inventarisatie van bestaande richtlijnen, een veldinventarisatie van beschikbare interventies, een transparant literatuuronderzoek, diverse commentaarrondes onder de werkgroep- en klankbordgroepleden en een praktijktoets. Bij de richtlijn werden een indicatorenset en een stroomschema ontwikkeld. De indicatoren worden beschreven in dit rapport. De richtlijn zelf is apart uitgegeven (Meeuwissen et al., 2015a).
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the shifts in society, healthcare and the profile of the malnourished individual, a re-consideration of the goal of nutritional risk screening is needed: screening for malnutrition, or screening for risk of malnutrition? In this review article, we reflect on the role of nutritional risk screening in relation to prevention and treatment of malnutrition.RECENT FINDINGS: Within the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) Initiative, modified Delphi studies are currently being conducted to reach global consensus on the conceptual definition and operationalization of 'risk of malnutrition'. This is necessary because various studies have demonstrated that different nutritional screening tools identify different individuals, due to variability in screening tool criteria, which influences GLIM outcomes. Upon screening, three different situations can be distinguished: having risk factors for malnutrition without clear signs of presence of malnutrition, having mild signs of malnutrition (malnutrition in progress), or having obvious signs of malnutrition.SUMMARY: The outcomes of the studies on 'risk of malnutrition' will guide the screening step within the GLIM process, and will help professionals to make informed choices regarding screening policy and screening tool(s).
DOCUMENT
Screening for psychological distress in patients with cancer is currently being debated in the British Journal of Cancer. Screening has been recommended, as elevated levels of distress have been consistently observed and clinicians tend to overlook the need of psychological support (Carlson et al, 2012; Carlson et al, 2013; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2013). On the other hand, it has been argued that screening should not be implemented, as the true benefit of screening and subsequent treatment of psychological distress is far from being definitively proven (Coyne, 2013). Recent findings on human resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) provide a new perspective on detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer. Humans show strong resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events, such as cancer diagnosis and treatment (Bonanno et al, 2011). This observation leads us to propose two alternative approaches towards detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer: ‘screening for psychological distress’ and ‘supporting resilience and case finding’.
DOCUMENT
If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly.
DOCUMENT
This research paper presents a Screening Room tool, inspired from the Film and TV industry, that is then applied to the game industry. The work involved the creation and development of several in-game prototypes of a Screening Room tool within the game engine Unity 5. The iterative development involved usability testing and benchmarking against an example of current game development quality assurance processes that use BugZilla. The prototype resulting from the third iteration was then tested within a commercial games company CodeGlue and it was found that an overall time saving of approximately 500% was made whilst usability being arguably better for bug finding staff whilst similar to more complex for the bug fixing staff.
DOCUMENT
Background and Aim: Caregivers in the home environment have an important role in timely detecting and responding to abuse. The aim of this review was to provide insight into both the existing tools for the assessment of and interventions for elder abuse by formal and informal caregivers in the home environment, and to categorize them according to a public health perspective, into primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary prevention. Methods: We selected the assessment tools and interventions that can be used by caregivers in the home environment included in previous reviews by Gallione et al (2017) and Fearing et al (2017). To identify published studies after these reviews, a search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Database, CINAHL and Web of Science. Results: In total, fifteen assessment tools and twelve interventions were included. The number of assessment tools for elder abuse for use in the home environment is increasing; however, tools must be validated over different cultures and risk groups. In addition, the tools lack attention for the needs of vulnerable older persons such as persons with dementia. Existing interventions for caregivers in the home environment lack evidence for addressing elder abuse and do not address potential adverse effects (quaternary prevention). Conclusion: Assessment tools for elder abuse need further testing for validity and reliability for use by caregivers in the home environment. For interventions, meaningful outcome measures are needed. Important to note is that quaternary prevention requires more attention. This argues for taking into account perspectives of (abused) older persons and caregivers in the development of assessment tools and interventions protocols.
DOCUMENT
Nowadays, digital tools for mathematics education are sophisticated and widely available. These tools offer important opportunities, but also come with constraints. Some tools are hard to tailor by teachers, educational designers and researchers; their functionality has to be taken for granted. Other tools offer many possible educational applications, which require didactical choices. In both cases, one may experience a tension between a teacher’s didactical goals and the tool’s affordances. From the perspective of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME), this challenge concerns both guided reinvention and didactical phenomenology. In this chapter, this dialectic relationship will be addressed through the description of two particular cases of using digital tools in Dutch mathematics education: the introduction of the graphing calculator (GC), and the evolution of the online Digital Mathematics Environment (DME). From these two case descriptions, my conclusion is that students need to develop new techniques for using digital tools; techniques that interact with conceptual understanding. For teachers, it is important to be able to tailor the digital tool to their didactical intentions. From the perspective of RME, I conclude that its match with using digital technology is not self-evident. Guided reinvention may be challenged by the rigid character of the tools, and the phenomena that form the point of departure of the learning of mathematics may change in a technology-rich classroom.
LINK
