Nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare facilities: A decade later

Maree Ferguson, Merrilyn Banks, Judy Bauer, Elisabeth Isenring, Angela Vivanti, Sandra Capra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim:

Nutrition screening can identify patients at risk for malnutrition so that early nutrition intervention can be initiated. The aim of this descriptive study was to compare nutrition screening practices in Australian hospitals in 2008 with those in 1995.

Methods:

A survey on nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare institutions was sent to members of the Dietitians Association of Australia in 1995 and a similar survey in 2008.

Results:

Sixty-eight hospitals responded to the 2008 survey and 124 hospitals to the 1995 survey. The number of hospitals reporting the conduct of nutrition screening has increased since 1995 (78% vs 23%). The number of patients being screened has also increased (all admissions 54% vs 35%) and the time taken to screen a patient has decreased (0-5 minutes 64% vs 13%). The Malnutrition Screening Tool was the most frequently reported screening tool used in 2008 (67%). The use of albumin as a nutrition screening parameter (which was the second most commonly used screening indicator after weight loss in 1995) has appropriately decreased (9% vs 65%). There is still some confusion among dietitians as to the definition of screening, with nutrition assessment tools such as Subjective Global Assessment and Mini-Nutritional Assessment being used during the nutrition screening process (16% in 2008). Insufficient time and staff are still the top two barriers to nutrition screening implementation. Staff training was the most frequently cited strategy to assist with successful implementation of nutrition screening.

Conclusion:

There has been a significant increase in malnutrition screening over the past decade despite ongoing barriers to implementation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-218
Number of pages6
JournalNutrition and Dietetics
Volume67
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Ferguson, Maree ; Banks, Merrilyn ; Bauer, Judy ; Isenring, Elisabeth ; Vivanti, Angela ; Capra, Sandra. / Nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare facilities : A decade later. In: Nutrition and Dietetics. 2010 ; Vol. 67, No. 4. pp. 213-218.
@article{9bf4121e44884853a65b08e2aeb2c7e0,
title = "Nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare facilities: A decade later",
abstract = "Aim:Nutrition screening can identify patients at risk for malnutrition so that early nutrition intervention can be initiated. The aim of this descriptive study was to compare nutrition screening practices in Australian hospitals in 2008 with those in 1995.Methods:A survey on nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare institutions was sent to members of the Dietitians Association of Australia in 1995 and a similar survey in 2008.Results:Sixty-eight hospitals responded to the 2008 survey and 124 hospitals to the 1995 survey. The number of hospitals reporting the conduct of nutrition screening has increased since 1995 (78{\%} vs 23{\%}). The number of patients being screened has also increased (all admissions 54{\%} vs 35{\%}) and the time taken to screen a patient has decreased (0-5 minutes 64{\%} vs 13{\%}). The Malnutrition Screening Tool was the most frequently reported screening tool used in 2008 (67{\%}). The use of albumin as a nutrition screening parameter (which was the second most commonly used screening indicator after weight loss in 1995) has appropriately decreased (9{\%} vs 65{\%}). There is still some confusion among dietitians as to the definition of screening, with nutrition assessment tools such as Subjective Global Assessment and Mini-Nutritional Assessment being used during the nutrition screening process (16{\%} in 2008). Insufficient time and staff are still the top two barriers to nutrition screening implementation. Staff training was the most frequently cited strategy to assist with successful implementation of nutrition screening.Conclusion:There has been a significant increase in malnutrition screening over the past decade despite ongoing barriers to implementation.",
author = "Maree Ferguson and Merrilyn Banks and Judy Bauer and Elisabeth Isenring and Angela Vivanti and Sandra Capra",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01465.x",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "213--218",
journal = "Nutrition and Dietetics",
issn = "1032-1322",
publisher = "Wiley-Academy",
number = "4",

}

Nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare facilities : A decade later. / Ferguson, Maree; Banks, Merrilyn; Bauer, Judy; Isenring, Elisabeth; Vivanti, Angela; Capra, Sandra.

In: Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 67, No. 4, 12.2010, p. 213-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare facilities

T2 - A decade later

AU - Ferguson, Maree

AU - Banks, Merrilyn

AU - Bauer, Judy

AU - Isenring, Elisabeth

AU - Vivanti, Angela

AU - Capra, Sandra

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - Aim:Nutrition screening can identify patients at risk for malnutrition so that early nutrition intervention can be initiated. The aim of this descriptive study was to compare nutrition screening practices in Australian hospitals in 2008 with those in 1995.Methods:A survey on nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare institutions was sent to members of the Dietitians Association of Australia in 1995 and a similar survey in 2008.Results:Sixty-eight hospitals responded to the 2008 survey and 124 hospitals to the 1995 survey. The number of hospitals reporting the conduct of nutrition screening has increased since 1995 (78% vs 23%). The number of patients being screened has also increased (all admissions 54% vs 35%) and the time taken to screen a patient has decreased (0-5 minutes 64% vs 13%). The Malnutrition Screening Tool was the most frequently reported screening tool used in 2008 (67%). The use of albumin as a nutrition screening parameter (which was the second most commonly used screening indicator after weight loss in 1995) has appropriately decreased (9% vs 65%). There is still some confusion among dietitians as to the definition of screening, with nutrition assessment tools such as Subjective Global Assessment and Mini-Nutritional Assessment being used during the nutrition screening process (16% in 2008). Insufficient time and staff are still the top two barriers to nutrition screening implementation. Staff training was the most frequently cited strategy to assist with successful implementation of nutrition screening.Conclusion:There has been a significant increase in malnutrition screening over the past decade despite ongoing barriers to implementation.

AB - Aim:Nutrition screening can identify patients at risk for malnutrition so that early nutrition intervention can be initiated. The aim of this descriptive study was to compare nutrition screening practices in Australian hospitals in 2008 with those in 1995.Methods:A survey on nutrition screening practices in Australian healthcare institutions was sent to members of the Dietitians Association of Australia in 1995 and a similar survey in 2008.Results:Sixty-eight hospitals responded to the 2008 survey and 124 hospitals to the 1995 survey. The number of hospitals reporting the conduct of nutrition screening has increased since 1995 (78% vs 23%). The number of patients being screened has also increased (all admissions 54% vs 35%) and the time taken to screen a patient has decreased (0-5 minutes 64% vs 13%). The Malnutrition Screening Tool was the most frequently reported screening tool used in 2008 (67%). The use of albumin as a nutrition screening parameter (which was the second most commonly used screening indicator after weight loss in 1995) has appropriately decreased (9% vs 65%). There is still some confusion among dietitians as to the definition of screening, with nutrition assessment tools such as Subjective Global Assessment and Mini-Nutritional Assessment being used during the nutrition screening process (16% in 2008). Insufficient time and staff are still the top two barriers to nutrition screening implementation. Staff training was the most frequently cited strategy to assist with successful implementation of nutrition screening.Conclusion:There has been a significant increase in malnutrition screening over the past decade despite ongoing barriers to implementation.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01465.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1747-0080.2010.01465.x

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 213

EP - 218

JO - Nutrition and Dietetics

JF - Nutrition and Dietetics

SN - 1032-1322

IS - 4

ER -