ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Malnutrition adversely affects clinical outcomes, necessitating a prompt and accurate assessment of nutritional status on admission. A variety of tools exist to aid nutritional assessment, of which the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) is recommended, but remains difficult to implement in practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this audit was to improve the utilisation of the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) in the Acute Medical Unit (AMU) at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. Specifically, patients should have a completed and accurate MUST score within 6 hours of arrival to AMU and high-risk patients (MUST score ≥2) should be referred to dieticians within 48 hours of admission. The first cycle was conducted by March 2019 and the second cycle was completed 1 year later to allow assessment of interventions actioned after the first cycle. METHODS: We conducted a two-cycle audit evaluating the MUST completion and dietician referral rate of high-risk patients (defined as MUST ≥2) on the Acute Medical Unit in a district general hospital, with the standards of 80% and 100% respectively. A questionnaire was distributed after the first cycle exploring nurses' current experience and competence in using MUST. RESULTS: In the first cycle, MUST scores were calculated correctly in 111/150 patients (74%) and 1/9 (11%) high-risk patients were referred to dieticians. After interventions, MUST scores were calculated correctly in 77/101 patients (76%) and 2/4 high-risk patients (50%) were referred to dieticians. The nurses (n = 19) who took part in the questionnaire felt confident in MUST completion, but the average score in an objective assessment was 67%. CONCLUSIONS: As per the literature, the first cycle demonstrated the under-utilisation of MUST in clinical practice. In response, we proposed additional face-to-face training for existing staff, the inclusion of an e-learning module within the staff's induction, and provision of ward MUST 'troubleshooting' booklets. MUST utilisation rates improved upon re-auditing, but not to target standards. We will need to consider potential barriers to sustainable change and implement interventions such as identification of nursing champions to overcome them.
Subject(s)
Malnutrition , Nutrition Assessment , Humans , Hospitals, General , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Nutritional Status , HospitalizationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sinus surgery is performed for medically recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis. There is no universally accepted strategy regarding post-operative antibiotics despite the high rates of usage worldwide. The aim of this study was to analyse patient-reported and objective outcomes behind antibiotic use following endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: A search of electronic databases was performed. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials were included. The primary outcome was patient reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were local infections, endoscopy scores and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 1045 publications identified, 7 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 5 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Antibiotic regimens varied between studies in terms of antibiotic selection, timing commenced and duration of use. Meta-analysis suggested no significant difference between placebo and antibiotics in patient reported outcome measures (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.215, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.637 to 0.207) or endoscopic scores (SMD -2.86, 95% CI -0.846 to 0.273). There was no consistent definition in reporting of infection; therefore, this outcome cannot be comprehensively considered. No severe adverse events were attributable to antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: From the studies analysed, there is no level 1 evidence to suggest that antibiotics improved patient outcomes following sinus surgery. However, there was significant heterogeneity in outcome measures and no clear data exists regarding the effects of antibiotics on postoperative infections. The available evidence at present is not enough to make a recommendation in either direction. Further designed larger RCTs are required to investigate these questions in more detail.