BackgroundThe usefulness of the nutritional screening tool Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form - Version II (MEONF-II) relative to Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) remains untested. Here we attempted to fill this gap by testing the diagnostic performance and user-friendliness of the MEONF-II and the NRS 2002 in relation to the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) among hospital inpatients.MethodsEighty seven hospital inpatients were assessed for nutritional status with the 18-item MNA (considered as the gold standard), and screened with the NRS 2002 and the MEONF-II.ResultsThe MEONF-II sensitivity (0.61), specificity (0.79), and accuracy (0.68) were acceptable. The corresponding figures for NRS 2002 were 0.37, 0.82 and 0.55, respectively. MEONF-II and NRS 2002 took five minutes each to complete. Assessors considered MEONF-II instructions and items to be easy to understand and complete (96-99%), and the items to be relevant (87%). For NRS 2002, the corresponding figures were 75-93% and 79%, respectively.ConclusionsThe MEONF-II is an easy to use, relatively quick and sensitive screening tool to assess risk of undernutrition among hospital inpatients. With respect to user-friendliness and sensitivity the MEONF-II seems to perform better than the NRS 2002, although larger studies are needed for firm conclusions. The different scoring systems for undernutrition appear to identify overlapping but not identical patient groups. A potential limitation with the study is that the MNA was used as gold standard among patients younger than 65 years.

Background and objectiveThe newly developed Minimal Eating Observation and Nutrition Form – Version II (MEONF-II) has shown promising sensitivity and specificity in relation to the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). However, the suggested MEONF-II cut-off scores for deciding low/moderate and high risk for undernutrition (UN) (>2 and >4, respectively) have not been decided based on statistical criteria but on clinical reasoning. The objective of this study was to identify the optimal cut-off scores for the MEONF-II in relation to the well-established MNA based on statistical criteria.DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsThe study included 187 patients (mean age, 77.5 years) assessed for nutritional status with the MNA (full version), and screened with the MEONF-II. The MEONF-II includes assessments of involuntary weight loss, Body Mass Index (BMI) (or calf circumference), eating difficulties, and presence of clinical signs ofUN. MEONF-II data were analysed by Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC); optimal cut-offs were identified by the Youden index (J=sensitivity+specificity–1).ResultsAccording to the MEONF-II, 41% were at moderate or high UN risk and according to the MNA, 50% were at risk or already undernourished. The suggested cut-off scores were supported by the Youden indices. The lower cut-off for MEONF-II, used to identify any level of risk for UN (>2; J=0.52) gave an overall accuracy of 76% and the AUC was 80%. The higher cut-off for identifying those with high risk for UN (>4; J=0.33) had an accuracy of 63% and the AUC was 70%.ConclusionsThe suggested MEONF-II cut-off scores were statistically supported. This improves the confidence of its clinical use.

The computer-based training seemed to increase the probability for patients at UN risk in the IH to receive nutritional treatment without increasing overtreatment.

Studies have shown that computer-based training in eating and nutrition for hospital nursing staff increased the likelihood that patients at risk of undernutrition would receive nutritional interventions. This article seeks to provide understanding from the perspective of nursing staff of conceptually important areas for computer-based nutritional training, and their relative importance to nutritional care, following completion of the training. Group concept mapping, an integrated qualitative and quantitative methodology, was used to conceptualize important factors relating to the training experiences through four focus groups (n = 43), statement sorting (n = 38), and importance rating (n = 32), followed by multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Sorting of 38 statements yielded four clusters. These clusters (number of statements) were as follows: personal competence and development (10), practice close care development (10), patient safety (9), and awareness about the nutrition care process (9). First and second clusters represented "the learning organization," and third and fourth represented "quality improvement." These findings provide a conceptual basis for understanding the importance of training in eating and nutrition, which contributes to a learning organization and quality improvement, and can be linked to and facilitates person-centered nutritional care and patient safety.

The computer-based training increased the provision of energy-dense food and dietician consultations to patients at UN risk without increasing overtreatment of patients without UN risk.