‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ predicts mortality and length of hospital stay in acutely ill elderly

The 'malnutrition universal screening tool' ('MUST') for adults has been developed for all health care settings and patient groups, but ease of use and agreement with other published tools when screening to identify malnutrition requires investigation. The present study assessed the agreement and the prevalence of malnutrition risk between 'MUST' and a variety of other tools in the same patients and compared the ease of using these tools. Groups of patients were consecutively screened using 'MUST' and: (1) MEREC Bulletin (MEREC) and Hickson and Hill (HH) tools (fifty gastroenterology outpatients); (2) nutrition risk score (NRS) and malnutrition screening tool (MST; seventy-five medical inpatients); (3) short-form mini nutritional assessment (MNA-tool; eighty-six elderly and eighty-five surgical inpatients); (4) subjective global assessment (SGA; fifty medical inpatients); (5) Doyle undernutrition risk score (URS; fifty-two surgical inpatients). Using 'MUST', the prevalence of malnutrition risk ranged from 19-60% in inpatients and 30% in outpatients. 'MUST' had 'excellent' agreement (kappa 0.775-0.893) with MEREC, NRS and SGA tools, 'fair-good' agreement (kappa 0.551-0.711) with HH, MST and MNA-tool tools and 'poor' agreement with the URS tool (kappa 0.255). When categorisation of malnutrition risk differed between tools, it did not do so systematically, except between 'MUST' and MNA-tool (P=0.0005) and URS (P=0.039). 'MUST' and MST were the easiest, quickest tools to complete (3-5 min). The present investigation suggested a high prevalence of malnutrition in hospital inpatients and outpatients (19-60% with 'MUST') and 'fair-good' to 'excellent' agreement beyond chance between 'MUST' and most other tools studied. 'MUST' was quick and easy to use in these patient groups.

There is some controversy about whether all adults receiving healthcare should be routinely screened for nutritional problems. (i) A systematic review examined the proposition that malnutrition is under-recognised and under-treated, and that nutritional interventions in malnourished patients, identified through a screening procedure produce clinical benefits (assessed using randomised controlled trials, RCTs). (ii) A systematic review of nutritional screening interventions in populations of malnourished and well-nourished subjects (RCTs and non-RCTs). (i) The prevalence of malnutrition varies according to the criteria used, but is estimated to affect 10-60% of patients in hospital and nursing homes, 10% or more of older free-living subjects, and less than 5% of younger adults. In the absence of formal screening procedures, more than half the patients at risk of malnutrition in various settings do not appear to be recognised and/or are not referred for treatment. RCTs show that nutritional interventions in malnourished patients produce various clinical benefits. (ii) Interventions with nutritional screening in different care settings also generally suggest clinical benefits, but some are limited by small sample sizes and inadequate methodology. Factors that influence outcomes include validity, reliability and ease of using the screening procedure, the 'care gap' that exists between routine and desirable care and the need for other resources, which may increase or decrease following screening. The frequent failure to recognise and treat malnutrition, especially where it is common, is unacceptable. In such circumstances, the routine use of a simple screening procedure is recommended. Each health care setting should have a transparent policy about nutritional screening, which may vary according to the 'care gap', available resources, and specific populations of patients, in which the prevalence of malnutrition may vary widely.