Volume 62, Issue 2 p. 237-243
Clinical Investigations

Quick and Easy Is Not without Cost: Implications of Poorly Performing Nutrition Screening Tools in Hip Fracture

Jack J. Bell GradDipNutrDiet

Corresponding Author

Jack J. Bell GradDipNutrDiet

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Centre for Dietetic Research, School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Address correspondence to Jack J. Bell, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Prince Charles Hospital, Rode Road, Chermside, Brisbane, Qld 4032, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Judith D. Bauer PhD

Judith D. Bauer PhD

Centre for Dietetic Research, School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Sandra Capra PhD

Sandra Capra PhD

Centre for Dietetic Research, School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Ranjeev C. Pulle MBBS

Ranjeev C. Pulle MBBS

Internal Medicine Services, Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 January 2014
Citations: 40

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the performance of commonly applied nutrition screening tools and measures and to consider the potential costs of undiagnosed malnutrition in a case-based reimbursement funding environment.

Design

A diagnostic accuracy study to compare a variety of nutrition screening techniques against primary, secondary, and comparative measures of nutritional status.

Setting

Public metropolitan hospital orthogeriatric unit.

Participants

Individuals with acute hip fracture admitted to the orthogeriatric unit; 150 prospective, consecutively admitted individuals were considered, with eight exclusions, yielding a sample size of 142 participants.

Measurements

Screens included the Mini Nutritional Assessment—Short Form, Malnutrition Screening Tool, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool, Nutrition Risk Screen 2002, anthropometric measures, and albumin. Malnutrition was diagnosed using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems, Tenth Edition, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) criteria. Healthcare coders costed malnutrition-related diagnostic related groups and cost-weight changes for individual participants.

Results

Malnutrition prevalence was 48%. Screening tools had only slight to moderate agreement with ICD-10-AM diagnosis of malnutrition, and none of the screening tools tested met the a priori requirement of 80% sensitivity and 60% specificity. The estimated cost effect of poor screening tool sensitivity on a 16-bed hip fracture unit ranged from AUS$46,506 to AUS$228,896 per year.

Conclusion

Poor screening tool sensitivity leads to undiagnosed malnutrition; tools that are quick and easy to apply are not without cost. Routine nutrition assessment should replace nutrition risk screening in hip fracture settings with a high prevalence of malnutrition reliant on case-mix funding. Further pragmatic studies are urgently required to determine whether findings apply to other elderly inpatient populations with endemic malnutrition, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment.