English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Aims: This study aimed to determine how nutritional endpoints affected nutritional risk assessment. We conducted nutritional screening using 3 different tools, namely, the modified SGA (mSGA), MUST, and Mini Nutritional Assessment® Short-Form (MNA®-SF). We compared the results of these nutritional evaluation tools and compared the parameters evaluated. Methods: This retrospective study comprised 1253 patients (mean age 71.0 ± 15.1 years) who had been admitted to the IMS Fujimi General Hospital from October to December 2017 (excluding pediatric admissions). Based on patient electronic medical records, nutritional status was determined using the abovementioned assessment tools. Additionally, we considered the parameters used in each evaluation tool and examined their use in determining nutritional status. Results: The mSGA, MUST, and MNA®-SF tools indicated that 15.1%, 31.4%, and 24.2% of patients were malnourished, respectively. Among the parameters affecting screening outcomes, assessing BMI was used in all tools. Moreover, pressure injury and mobility were found to be frequently used as evaluation parameters in the mSGA and the MNA®-SF, respectively. Compared with the mSGA, the MUST and the MNA®-SF evaluated the presence of malnutrition more frequently. Conclusions: BMI assessment affects the nutritional status of a patient and was an essential factor in nutritional assessment, based on the 3 tools employed in our study. The MNA®-SF appeared more readily usable for nutritional risk assessment because of smaller evaluation parameter numbers and being easier to apply than the mSGA. The MNA®-SF also included walking unaided as an evaluation parameter for nutritional status alongside diet and weight loss.

Nutritional Risk Assessment at a Municipal Hospital Using Nutritional Tools: A Retrospective Study