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:

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.

Patients requiring enteral feeding during treatment were fed via a nasogastric tube, rather than via a prophylactic gastrostomy tube. Compared with the regional gastrostomy audit results, our patients had a lower clinical risk/complication rate, with a greater proportion tolerating full oral intake at 6 months. Therefore, nasogastric feeding, rather than prophylactic gastrostomy tube feeding, could be a more appropriate method of enteral feeding in this patient group.

No abstract