No abstract

No abstract

Background: Although nutritional screening with a tool such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is recommended for outpatients, staff are under pressure to undertake a variety of other tasks. Little attention has been paid to the validity of patient self-screening with MUST.Objective: This study in 205 outpatients with a mean (6SD) age of 55 6 17 y (56% male) assessed the practicalities of self-screening, its agreement with screening undertaken by a trained health care professional (HCP), and its test-retest reliability. Design: After the participants provided consent, screening was undertaken by the patients themselves and then by a trained HCP who was unaware of the self-screening results. All patients completed an ease-of-use questionnaire. Test-retest reliability of self-screening was established in a subset of 60 patients. Results: A total of 19.6% of patients categorized themselves as "at risk" of malnutrition (9.8% medium, 9.8% high). For the 3-category classification of MUST (low, medium, high), agreement between self-screening and HCP screening was 90% (k = 0.70; SE = 0.058, P , 0.001). For the 2-category classification (low risk, medium + high risk), agreement was 93% (k = 0.78, SE = 0.057, P , 0.001). Disagreements were not systematically under-or overcategorized. Test-retest reliability was almost perfect (k = 0.94, P , 0.001). Most patients (71%) completed self-screening in ,5 min. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (96%) and complete (98%), with 94% reporting that they were happy to screen themselves. Conclusion: Self-screening involving MUST in outpatients is acceptable to patients, user-friendly, reliable, and associated with good agreement with HCP screening. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00714324.Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:

No abstract

COVID-19 negatively impacts nutritional status and as such identification of nutritional risk and consideration of the need for nutrition support should be fundamental in this patient group. In recent months, clinical nutrition professional organisations across the world have published nutrition support recommendations for health care professionals. This review summarises key themes of those publications linked to nutrition support of adults with or recovering from COVID-19 outside of hospital. Using our search criteria, 15 publications were identified from electronic databases and websites of clinical nutrition professional organisations, worldwide up to 19th June 2020. The key themes across these publications included the importance in the community setting of: (i) screening for malnutrition, which can be achieved by remote consultation; (ii) care plans with appropriate nutrition support, which may include food based strategies, oral nutritional supplements and referral to a dietitian; (iii) continuity of nutritional care between settings including rapid communication at discharge of malnutrition risk and requirements for ongoing nutrition support. These themes, and indeed the importance of nutritional care, are fundamental and should be integrated into pathways for the rehabilitation of patients recovering from COVID-19.

Cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is associated with dysbiosis of the infant gut microbiome, with allergic and immune development implications. Studies show benefits of combining synbiotics with hypoallergenic formulae, although evidence has never been systematically examined. This review identified seven publications of four randomised controlled trials comparing an amino acid formula (AAF) with an AAF containing synbiotics (AAF-Syn) in infants with CMPA (mean age 8.6 months; 68% male, mean intervention 27.3 weeks, n = 410). AAF and AAF-Syn were equally effective in managing allergic symptoms and promoting normal growth. Compared to AAF, significantly fewer infants fed AAF-Syn had infections (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.19–0.67), p = 0.001). Overall medication use, including antibacterials and antifectives, was lower among infants fed AAF-Syn. Significantly fewer infants had hospital admissions with AAF-Syn compared to AAF (8.8% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.036; 56% reduction), leading to potential cost savings per infant of £164.05–£338.77. AAF-Syn was associated with increased bifidobacteria (difference in means 31.75, 95% CI 26.04–37.45, p < 0.0001); reduced Eubacterium rectale and Clostridium coccoides (difference in means −19.06, 95% CI −23.15 to −14.97, p < 0.0001); and reduced microbial diversity (p < 0.05), similar to that described in healthy breastfed infants, and may be associated with the improved clinical outcomes described. This review provides evidence that suggests combining synbiotics with AAF produces clinical benefits with potential economic implications.

Self-screening using an electronic version of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool ('MUST') has been developed but its implementation requires investigation. A total of 100 outpatients (mean age 50 (sd 16) years; 57 % male) self-screened with an electronic version of 'MUST' and were then screened by a healthcare professional (HCP) to assess concurrent validity. Ease of use, time to self-screen and prevalence of malnutrition were also assessed. A further twenty outpatients (mean age 54 (sd 15) years; 55 % male) examined preference between self- screening with paper and electronic versions of 'MUST'. For the three-category classification of 'MUST' (low, medium and high risk), agreement between electronic self-screening and HCP screening was 94 % (κ=0·74, se 0·092; P<0·001). For the two-category classification (low risk; medium+high risk) agreement was 96 % (κ=0·82, se 0·085; P<0·001), comparable with the previously reported paper-based self-screening. In all, 15 % of patients categorised themselves 'at risk' of malnutrition (5 % medium, 10 % high). Electronic self-screening took 3 min (sd 1·2 min), 40 % faster than previously reported for the paper-based version. Patients found the tool easy or very easy to understand (99 %) and complete (98 %). Patients that assessed both tools found the electronic tool easier to complete (65 %) and preferred it (55 %) to the paper version. Electronic self-screening using 'MUST' in a heterogeneous group of hospital outpatients is acceptable, user-friendly and has 'substantial to almost-perfect' agreement with HCP screening. The electronic format appears to be as agreeable and often the preferred format when compared with the validated paper-based 'MUST' self-screening tool.

This pragmatic randomised trial involving one of the oldest populations subjected to a cost-utility analysis, suggests that use of oral nutritional supplements in care homes are cost-effective relative to dietary advice.