Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults

  • Rebecca J. Stratton (a1), Annemarie Hackston (a1), David Longmore (a1), Rod Dixon (a1), Sarah Price (a1), Mike Stroud (a1), Claire King (a1) and Marinos Elia (a1)...
Abstract

The ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults has been developed for all health care settings and patient groups, but ease of use and agreement with other published tools when screening to identify malnutrition requires investigation. The present study assessed the agreement and the prevalence of malnutrition risk between ‘MUST’ and a variety of other tools in the same patients and compared the ease of using these tools. Groups of patients were consecutively screened using ‘MUST’ and: (1) MEREC Bulletin (MEREC) and Hickson and Hill (HH) tools (fifty gastroenterology outpatients); (2) nutrition risk score (NRS) and malnutrition screening tool (MST; seventy-five medical inpatients); (3) short-form mini nutritional assessment (MNA-tool; eighty-six elderly and eighty-five surgical inpatients); (4) subjective global assessment (SGA; fifty medical inpatients); (5) Doyle undernutrition risk score (URS; fifty-two surgical inpatients). Using ‘MUST’, the prevalence of malnutrition risk ranged from 19–60% in inpatients and 30% in outpatients. ‘MUST’ had ‘excellent’ agreement (κ 0.775–0.893) with MEREC, NRS and SGA tools, ‘fair–good’ agreement (κ 0.551–0.711) with HH, MST and MNA-tool tools and ‘poor’ agreement with the URS tool (κ 0.255). When categorisation of malnutrition risk differed between tools, it did not do so systematically, except between ‘MUST’ and MNA-tool (P=0.0005) and URS (P=0.039). ‘MUST’ and MST were the easiest, quickest tools to complete (3–5 min). The present investigation suggested a high prevalence of malnutrition in hospital inpatients and outpatients (19–60% with ‘MUST’) and ‘fair–good’ to ‘excellent’ agreement beyond chance between ‘MUST’ and most other tools studied. ‘MUST’ was quick and easy to use in these patient groups.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Malnutrition in hospital outpatients and inpatients: prevalence, concurrent validity and ease of use of the ‘malnutrition universal screening tool’ (‘MUST’) for adults
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Dr Rebecca J. Stratton, fax +44 23 80794945, email, R.J.Stratton@soton.ac.uk
Footnotes
Hide All

Some of the results have been presented as abstracts at meetings of the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN) and the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN). For more information and for a free download of the malnutrition universal screening tool and the explanatory booklet, see www.bapen.org.uk

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

AB Cantor (1996) Sample size calculations for Cohen's kappa. Psychol Methods 1, 150153.

AS Detsky , JR McLaughlin , JP Baker , N Johnston , S Whittaker , RA Mendelson & KN Jeejeebhoy (1987) What is subjective global assessment of nutritional status?. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 11, 813.

MP Doyle , E Barnes & M Moloney (2000) The evaluation of an undernutrition risk score to be used by nursing staff in a teaching hospital to identify surgical patients at risk of malnutrition on admission: a pilot study. J Hum Nutr Diet 13, 433441.

M Hickson & M Hill (1997) Implementing a nutritional assessment tool in the community: a report describing the process, audit and problems encountered. J Hum Nutr Diet 10, 373377.

CL King , M Elia , MA Stroud & RJ Stratton (2003) The predictive validity of the malnutrition universal screening tool (‘MUST’) with regard to mortality and length of stay in elderly inpatients. Clin Nutr 22 S4

J Kondrup , SP Allison , M Elia , B Vellas & M Plauth (2003) ESPEN guidelines for nutrition screening 2002. Clin Nutr 22, 415421.

JR Landis & GG Koch (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.

SJ Lewis , M Egger , PA Sylvester & S Thomas (2001) Early enteral feeding versus ‘nil by mouth’ after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. Br Med J 323, 773776.

J Potter , P Langhorne & M Roberts (1998) Routine protein energy supplementation in adults: systematic review. Br Med J 317, 495501.

LZ Rubenstein , JO Harker , A Salva , Y Guigoz & B Vellas (2001) Screening for undernutrition in geriatric practice: developing the short-form mini-nutritional assessment (MNA-SF). J Gerontol A 56, M366M372.

RJ Stratton , R Dixon , D Longmore , M Stroud & M Elia (2003 a) Effect of recalled weight and height on malnutrition risk. Clin Nutr 22, Suppl. 1 S9

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2489 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1843 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.