Article

The two-step Mini Nutritional Assessment procedure in community resident homes

Department of Nursing Science, University College of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
Journal of Clinical Nursing (Impact Factor: 1.23). 06/2008; 17(9):1211-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02012.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT AIMS AND OBJECTIVITIES: The aims were to test internal consistency and interrater reliability of Mini Nutritional Assessment during implementation of Mini Nutritional Assessment in community residential homes and to test sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic predictivity of Mini Nutritional Assessment-short form vs. Mini Nutritional Assessment.
There is a need in clinical practice to assess nutritional status in older people and to identify those who could benefit from early intervention.
The two-step Mini Nutritional Assessment procedure (Mini Nutritional Assessment-short form and Mini Nutritional Assessment) was used in 127 older people admitted to eight residential homes. In three of those homes (A, B and C), registered nurses simultaneously performed the assessment procedure, after receiving education and training. The intention was to offer the registered nurses a tool for independent practice use.
Internal consistency was 0.68 (Cronbach's alpha) (n = 127). In residential home A, B and C, the registered nurses carried out Mini Nutritional Assessment in 45 residents out of 68. The agreement level between the author's and the registered nurses' assessments was 62% (kappa 0.41). In residential home A, B and C, the agreement level was 89%, 89% and 44%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic predictivity of Mini Nutritional Assessment-short form vs. Mini Nutritional Assessment were 89%, 82% and 92%, respectively.
The two-step Mini Nutritional Assessment procedure seems to be a useful tool to identify residents in need of nutritional interventions, despite the registered nurses not carrying out Mini Nutritional Assessment in all residents and the low agreement in residential home C. It indicates that to implement and use Mini Nutritional Assessment in nursing care demands the creating necessary staff resources, such as adequate staffing, sufficient education and continual supervision.
Because of the high sensitivity of Mini Nutritional Assessment-short form and Mini Nutritional Assessment, Mini Nutritional Assessment-short form alone might be sufficient for practice use, as its simplicity might increase its usefulness.

1 Follower
 · 
183 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nutritional assessment in older people to detect malnutrition or risk of malnutrition is essential to avoid adverse nutrition-related outcomes. Poor nutritional status appears to be a major contributing factor for poor prognosis in malnourished individuals. Nowadays, nutritional assessment is considered to be one of the domains which should be evaluated in comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). CGA is a comprehensive assessment tool with the capacity of detecting impairments in older people and, at the same time, suggest interventions. Although many assessment tools are proposed, those used in CGA are not widely agreed. After 20 years of clinical practice and research, the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) seems to be the tool most widely accepted by health carers and patients for the assessment of nutritional impairment in CGA.
    Reviews in Clinical Gerontology 10/2007; 17(04):293 - 310. DOI:10.1017/S095925980800258X · 0.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundWhen the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA©) was developed, the authors did not specifically focus on the nursing home setting. Due to a number of particularities of nursing home residents, such as cognitive and linguistic disabilities, a number of uncertainties with regard to its application await clarification. Aims and objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the results of two different modes of MNA application in nursing homes: resident interviews versus assessment by nursing staff. MethodThe MNA was applied to 200 residents of two municipal nursing homes in Nuremberg, Germany. First one-on-one interviews of the residents were conducted by two researchers from our group. Next, the MNA was applied by the attending nursing staff who was blinded to the results of the first MNA. To evaluate the prognostic properties of the two different approaches, data on mortality of the screened residents were collected during a six-month follow-up period. ResultsAmong 200 residents (f 147 m 53, f 86.5±7.4 y. m 83.0±8.5 y.), the MNA could be applied t 138 residents (69. 0%) by one-on-one interviews and to 188 residents (94.0%) by the nursing staff. 15.2% of the residents were categorised as malnourished by the interviews and 8.7% by the nursing staff’s assessment. The agreement of the two forms was low for the MNA short form (weighted kappa = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14 − 0.47) as well as for the full MNA (weighted kappa = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.27 − 0.44). After exclusion of residents with cognitive impairment (n=89), agreement for the full version increased (weighted kappa = 0.47, 95% CI 0. 25 − 0.68). 25 (12.5%) study participants deceased during the follow-up period. Mortality was significantly associated with the mortality for both approaches, while the MNA application by the nursing staff proved to be superior (nursing staff p<0.001, residents p<0.05). ConclusionsThe results of the MNA in nursing home residents may differ substantially when resident interviews are compared to assessment by nursing staff. The authors recommend that the MNA should be routinely applied by the nursing staff. The application rate is higher and interference with cognitive as well as linguistic deficits is lower. In future studies, the mode of MNA application in nursing home residents should be clearly stated to facilitate comparability of results. Key wordsNutrional screening-Mini Nutritional Assessment-malnutrition-nursing home
    The Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging 01/2009; 13(10):863-869. DOI:10.1007/s12603-009-0243-2 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) are two widely used malnutrition screening scales. The study was to compare the grading ability of the two scales, and to determine whether adoption of population-specific anthropometric cut-points could improve the grading ability of these tools and whether calf circumference (CC) could be an acceptable alternative to BMI in these scales. Purposive sampling. Outpatients receiving annual physical examination at an area hospital. Community-living elderly who were 65 years or older, able to communicate orally, without acute health conditions and willing to sign a study-consent. Subjects were measured for anthropometrics and blood biochemical indicators, and interviewed for personal data and answers to the MNA and MUST. The risk of malnutrition was evaluated with the short-form MNA (MNA-SF) and the MUST, each in three versions (the original, Taiwan version-1 (T1) which adopted population-specific anthropometric cut-points, and Taiwan version-2 (T2) which replaced BMI with CC). Long-form (LF) MNA versions served as references. Results showed that (a) in both scales, patterns of nutritional status rated with the original versions were different from those rated with respective modified versions but ratings made with two modified versions were the same, (b) the T2 versions showed the best grading ability based on agreement with the reference (MNA-LF), and (c) MNA-SF versions rated greater proportions of subjects at risk of malnutrition than the respective MUST versions. (a) Adoption of population-specific anthropometric cut-points improves the grading ability of the MNA-SF and the MUST in community-living Taiwanese, (b) CC is an acceptable alternative to BMI for both MNA-SF and MUST, and (c) nutritional assessment tools should be as much population or ethnically specific as possible to account for cultural and anthropometric differences across populations.
    International journal of nursing studies 07/2009; 46(11):1431-8. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.004 · 2.25 Impact Factor