A local nutritional screening tool compared to malnutrition universal screening tool

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the Glasgow Nutritional Screening Tool with the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) recently recommended for use by the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

Design: Comparison-validation study.

Setting: Four adult acute hospitals in Glasgow, UK.

Subjects: All 242 in-patients from a variety of specialties.

Methods: Two investigators independently interviewed 202 in-patients for the comparison-validation study. Each used a single tool with each patient, using each tool in turn. Investigators were not aware of each other's assessments. Forty other patients were interviewed by both raters separately using the local tool to evaluate inter-rater reliability.

Results: When compared with MUST as a 'gold standard', the local tool had a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 64.9%, with moderate agreement between the two tools using kappa test (kappa=0.57). Agreement between the raters was substantial (kappa=0.69) with 85% of patients classified the same by both raters.

Conclusion: The Glasgow Nutritional Screening Tool is a valid and reliable tool that can be used on admission for nutritional screening.