4.7 Article

Testing the Accuracy of a Bedside Screening Tool Framework to Clinical Records for Identification of Patients at Risk of Malnutrition in a Rural Setting: An Exploratory Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14010205

关键词

rural; malnutrition risk; malnutrition screening; rural health services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of using the PG-SGA malnutrition risk screening tool on electronic medical records (EMR) compared to bedside screening interviews. The results showed that applying the PG-SGA tool to EMR had moderate diagnostic accuracy, with the highest accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for patients with a score of 7.
This study aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) malnutrition risk screening tool when used to score patients based on their electronic medical records (EMR), compared to bedside screening interviews. In-patients at a rural health service were screened at the bedside (n = 50) using the PG-SGA, generating a bedside score. Clinical notes within EMRs were then independently screened by blinded researchers. The accuracy of the EMR score was assessed against the bedside score using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Participants were 62% female and 32% had conditions associated with malnutrition, with a mean age of 70.6 years (SD 14.9). The EMR score had moderate diagnostic accuracy relative to PG-SGA bedside screen, AUC 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59-0.89). The accuracy, specificity and sensitivity of the EMR score was highest for patients with a score of 7, indicating EMR screen is more likely to detect patients at risk of malnutrition. This exploratory study showed that applying the PG-SGA screening tool to EMRs had enough sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients at risk of malnutrition to warrant further exploration in low-resource settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据