4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Dutch national survey to test the STRONGkids nutritional risk screening tool in hospitalized children

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 106-111

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2009.07.006

Keywords

Malnutrition; Risk group; Screening tool; Hospitalized children; National study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims: Children admitted to the hospital are at risk of developing malnutrition. The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility and value of a new nutritional risk screening tool, called STRONG(kids), in a nationwide study. Methods: A Prospective observational multi-centre study was performed in 44 Dutch hospitals (7 academic and 37 general), over three consecutive days during the month of November 2007. The STRONGkids screening tool consisted of 4 items: (1) subjective clinical assessment, (2) high risk disease, (3) nutritional intake, (4) weight loss. Measurements of weight and length were performed. SD-scores <-2 for weight-for-height and height-for-age were considered to indicate acute and chronic malnutrition respectively. Results: A total of 424 children were included. Median age was 3.5 years and median hospital stay was 2 days. Sixty-two percent of the children were classified at risk of developing malnutrition by the STRONG(kids) tool. Children at risk had significantly lower SD-scores for weight-for-height, a higher prevalence of acute malnutrition and a longer hospital stay compared to children with no nutritional risk. Conclusions: The nutritional risk screening tool STRONG(kids) was successfully applied to 98% of the children. Using this tool, a significant relationship was found between having a high risk score, a negative SD-score in weight-for-height and a prolonged hospital stay. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available