Cost-effectiveness of the hospital nutrition screening tool CIPA.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital malnutrition is very common and worsens the clinical course of patients while increasing costs. Lacking clinical-economic studies on the implementation of nutrition screening encouraged the evaluation of the CIPA (Control of Food Intake, Protein, Anthropometry) tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An open, non-randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients admitted to internal medicine and general and digestive surgery wards, who were either assigned to a control (standard hospital clinical care) or to an intervention, CIPA-performing ward (412 and 411, respectively; n = 823). Length of stay, mortality, readmission, in-hospital complications, and quality of life were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness was analysed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The mean length of stay was higher in the CIPA group, though not significantly (+ 0.95 days; p = 0.230). On the surgical ward, more patients from the control group moved to critical care units (p = 0.014); the other clinical variables did not vary. Quality of life at discharge was similar (p = 0.53), although slightly higher in the CIPA group at 3 months (p = 0.089). Patients under CIPA screening had a higher mean cost of € 691.6 and a mean QALY gain over a 3-month period of 0.0042. While the cost per QALY for the internal medicine patients was € 642 282, the results for surgical patients suggest that the screening tool is both less costly and more effective. CONCLUSIONS: The CIPA nutrition screening tool is likely to be cost-effective in surgical but not in internal medicine patients.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Patients Subjected to CIPA Nutrition Screening and Treatment versus Standard Care.

Malnutrition is prevalent in surgical patients and leads to comorbidities and a poorer postoperative course. There are no studies that compare the clinical outcomes of implementing a nutrition screening tool in surgical patients with standard clinical practice. An open, non-randomized, controlled study was conducted in general and digestive surgical hospitalized patients, who were either assigned to standard clinical care or to nutrition screening using the Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) tool and an associated treatment protocol (n = 210 and 202, respectively). Length of stay, mortality, readmissions, in-hospital complications, transfers to critical care units, and reinterventions were evaluated. Patients in the CIPA group had a higher Charlson index on admission and underwent more oncological and hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgeries. Although not significant, a shorter mean length of stay was observed in the CIPA group (-1.48 days; p < 0.246). There were also fewer cases of exitus (seven vs. one) and fewer transfers to critical care units in this group (p = 0.068 for both). No differences were detected in other clinical variables. In conclusion, patients subjected to CIPA nutrition screening and treatment showed better clinical outcomes than those receiving usual clinical care. The results were not statistically significant, possibly due to the heterogeneity across patient groups.

[Optimisation of nutritional screening tool CIPA: are two parameters of protein really necessary?] / Optimización del cribado nutricional CIPA: ¿son necesarios dos parámetros proteicos?

INTRODUCTION: the preliminary nutritional screening tool CIPA (food intake, proteins, anthropometry) is positive when it fulfills one of the following: control food intake (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albumin < 3 g/dl, total protein < 5 g/dl, body mass index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm. The use of two protein parameters increases costs and difficulty; one of them can be suppressed without affecting validity. OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the effectiveness of screening CIPA after exclusion of total protein. METHOD: prospective study of hospitalized patients; prevalence or risk of malnutrition was evaluated through CIPA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Hospital malnutrition according to complete CIPA screening (with total proteins and albumin, [CIPAc] and without total proteins [CIPAw/p]) and concordance between both methods were analyzed, as well as the association of the positive screening result with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: three hundred and forty-three patients were analyzed. The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by complete CIPA (c) was 38.19% (33.02-43.36); by CIPA without protein (w/p), 37.32% (32.17-42.46); and SGA was 29.15% (24.32-33.99). Kappa index: 0.981 between both CIPAs, p < 0.001. Both CIPA and SGA detect patients with higher mortality in hospital and one month after discharge. Early readmission was higher in positive CIPA, statistical significantly in CIPAw/p (screening with positive results 21.88% vs screening with negative results 13.49%, p = 0.044), SGA 20.01% vs 15.23%, p = 0.28. Length of stay was higher in patients with positive screening in CIPAc, CIPAw/p and SGA. CONCLUSIONS: CIPAw/p is equally or more effective than the previously validated full CIPA; therefore, it could replace the latter saving costs. The prevalence of malnutrition is high in both variants and they are able to predict which patient has worse clinical prognosis.

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA (control de ingestas, proteínas, antropometría) preliminar es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: control de ingestas (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albúmina < 3 g/dl, proteínas totales < 5 g/dl, índice de masa corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o circunferencia del brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (cuando el paciente no se puede pesar/tallar). El uso de dos parámetros proteicos aumenta costes y complejidad, pudiendo suprimirse uno de ellos sin afectar su validez.Objetivos: evaluar la efectividad del cribado CIPA tras exclusión de proteínas totales.Métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes hospitalizados valorando prevalencia o riesgo de desnutrición a través de CIPA y valoración global subjetiva (VGS). Análisis de desnutrición hospitalaria según el cribado CIPA completo (con proteínas totales y albúmina, CIPAc) y sin proteínas totales (CIPAs/p), y análisis de la concordancia entre ambos métodos. Estudio de la asociación del resultado positivo del cribado con factores pronósticos.Resultados: se analizaron 343 pacientes. Prevalencia de desnutrición: CIPAc 38,19% (33,02-43,36), CIPAs/p 37,32% (32,17-42,46), VGS 29,15% (24,32-33,99). Índice de correlación Kappa: 0,981 entre ambos CIPA, p < 0,001. Tanto las dos versiones de CIPA como la VGS detectan pacientes con mayor mortalidad hospitalaria y al mes del alta. Reingreso precoz: mayor en CIPA positivo, estadísticamente significativo en CIPAs/p (cribado positivo 21,88% vs. negativo 13,49%, p = 0,044), VGS 20,01% vs. 15,23%, p = 0,28. Estancia media: superior en pacientes con cribado positivo en las dos variantes de CIPA y en VGS.Conclusiones: CIPAs/p es igual o más eficaz que CIPAc validado previamente, por lo que puede sustituir a este último ahorrando costes. La prevalencia de desnutrición es elevada en ambas variantes y son capaces de identificar al paciente con peor pronóstico clínico.

Optimización del cribado nutricional cipa: ¿son necesarios dos parámetros proteicos? / Optimisation of nutritional screening tool CIPA: are two parameters of protein really necessary?

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA (control de ingestas, proteínas, antropometría) preliminar es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: control de ingestas (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albúmina < 3 g/dl, proteínas totales < 5 g/dl, índice de masa corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o circunferencia del brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (cuando el paciente no se puede pesar/tallar). El uso de dos parámetros proteicos aumenta costes y complejidad, pudiendo suprimirse uno de ellos sin afectar su validez. Objetivos: evaluar la efectividad del cribado CIPA tras exclusión de proteínas totales. Métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes hospitalizados valorando prevalencia o riesgo de desnutrición a través de CIPA y valoración global subjetiva (VGS). Análisis de desnutrición hospitalaria según el cribado CIPA completo (con proteínas totales y albúmina, CIPAc) y sin proteínas totales (CIPAs/p), y análisis de la concordancia entre ambos métodos. Estudio de la asociación del resultado positivo del cribado con factores pronósticos. Resultados: se analizaron 343 pacientes. Prevalencia de desnutrición: CIPAc 38,19% (33,02-43,36), CIPAs/p 37,32% (32,17-42,46), VGS 29,15% (24,32-33,99). Índice de correlación Kappa: 0,981 entre ambos CIPA, p < 0,001. Tanto las dos versiones de CIPA como la VGS detectan pacientes con mayor mortalidad hospitalaria y al mes del alta. Reingreso precoz: mayor en CIPA positivo, estadísticamente significativo en CIPAs/p (cribado positivo 21,88% vs. negativo 13,49%, p = 0,044), VGS 20,01% vs. 15,23%, p = 0,28. Estancia media: superior en pacientes con cribado positivo en las dos variantes de CIPA y en VGS. Conclusiones: CIPAs/p es igual o más eficaz que CIPAc validado previamente, por lo que puede sustituir a este último ahorrando costes. La prevalencia de desnutrición es elevada en ambas variantes y son capaces de identificar al paciente con peor pronóstico clínico

Introduction: the preliminary nutritional screening tool CIPA (food intake, proteins, anthropometry) is positive when it fulfills one of the following: control food intake (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albumin < 3 g/dl, total protein < 5 g/dl, body mass index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm. The use of two protein parameters increases costs and difficulty; one of them can be suppressed without affecting validity. Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of screening CIPA after exclusion of total protein. Method: prospective study of hospitalized patients; prevalence or risk of malnutrition was evaluated through CIPA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Hospital malnutrition according to complete CIPA screening (with total proteins and albumin, [CIPAc] and without total proteins [CIPAw/p]) and concordance between both methods were analyzed, as well as the association of the positive screening result with clinical outcomes. Results: three hundred and forty-three patients were analyzed. The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by complete CIPA (c) was 38.19% (33.02-43.36); by CIPA without protein (w/p), 37.32% (32.17-42.46); and SGA was 29.15% (24.32-33.99). Kappa index: 0.981 between both CIPAs, p < 0.001. Both CIPA and SGA detect patients with higher mortality in hospital and one month after discharge. Early readmission was higher in positive CIPA, statistical significantly in CIPAw/p (screening with positive results 21.88% vs screening with negative results 13.49%, p = 0.044), SGA 20.01% vs 15.23%, p = 0.28. Length of stay was higher in patients with positive screening in CIPAc, CIPAw/p and SGA. Conclusions: CIPAw/p is equally or more effective than the previously validated full CIPA; therefore, it could replace the latter saving costs. The prevalence of malnutrition is high in both variants and they are able to predict which patient has worse clinical prognosis

Clinical and cost-effectiveness analysis of early detection of patients at nutrition risk during their hospital stay through the new screening method CIPA: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized patients and results in a worsened clinical course as well as an increased length of stay, mortality, and costs. Therefore, simple nutrition screening systems, such as CIPA (control of food intake, protein, anthropometry), may be implemented to facilitate the patient's recovery process. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing such screening tool in a tertiary hospital, consistent with the lack of similar, published studies on any hospital nutrition screening system. METHODS: The present study is carried out as an open, controlled, randomized study on patients that were admitted to the Internal Medicine and the General and Digestive Surgery ward; the patients were randomized to either a control or an intervention group (n = 824, thereof 412 patients in each of the two study arms). The control group underwent usual inpatient clinical care, while the intervention group was evaluated with the CIPA screening tool for early detection of malnutrition and treated accordingly. CIPA nutrition screening was performed upon hospital admission and classified positive when at least one of the following parameters was met: 72 h food intake control < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dL, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm). In this case, the doctor decided on whether or not providing nutrition support. The following variables will be evaluated: hospital length of stay (primary endpoint), mortality, 3-month readmission, and in-hospital complications. Likewise, the quality of life questionnaires EQ-5D-5 L are being collected for all patients at hospital admission, discharge, and 3 months post-discharge. Analysis of cost-effectiveness will be performed by measuring effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost per patient will be established by identifying health care resource utilization; cost-effectiveness will be determined through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We will calculate the incremental cost per QALY gained with respect to the intervention. DISCUSSION: This ongoing trial aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the malnutrition screening tool CIPA in a tertiary hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial.gov ( NCT02721706 ). First receivevd: March 1, 2016 Last updated: April 8, 2017 Last verified: April 2017.

Análisis del grado de satisfacción alimentaria percibido por los pacientes en un hospital de tercer nivel.

Introducción: la alimentación constituye el pilar fundamental del soporte nutricional de los pacientes hospitalizados. Evaluar el grado de aceptación de la dieta es imprescindible en aras de combatir la desnutrición hospitalaria.Objetivos: a) determinar el grado de satisfacción de los pacientes en relación con las dietas; y b) analizar posibles variables asociadas a un grado de satisfacción mayor (apetito y tipo de dieta).Material y métodos: estudio descriptivo de corte transversal. Se emplea una encuesta de 17 preguntas con datos sociodemográficos, datos cualitativos, así como la valoración general del paciente. Se comparó el grado de satisfacción global en función del apetito y el tipo de dieta (terapéutica vs.basal; con sal vs.sosa) (Test no paramétric o Krustal-Wallis y T-Student para muestras independientes, respectivamente).Resultados: mil cuatrocientos trece pacientes. Edad: 53,9 ± 19 años; 51,3% mujeres. Dieta terapéutica (34,9%). Solo el 39,4% tomó dieta con sal. El 66,8% refirió ingresos previos. La alimentación del hospital para un 43% de pacientes fue ''como esperaba'', mientras que para un 44,1% fue ''mejor de lo que esperaba''. El horario de comidas era adecuado (89,1%) y el tiempo para comer, suficiente (96,4%). En cuanto a las características de la comida servida, consideraron como buenas o muy buenas la misma el porcentaje reflejado: sabor/gusto (56.3%), olor (65,5%), cocinado (69,2%), presentación (80,4%), tamaño de ración (75,9%), calidad (73%), cantidad (77,9%), variedad (67,6%), temperatura (70,4%). La valoración global de la alimentación en una escala de 1 a 10 fue de 6,8 ± 2,3. El apetito se asoció a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción global alimentaria del paciente (p < 0,01). El tipo de dieta o la presencia de sal en la misma no se asociaron a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción con la dieta de los pacientes (p = 0,99 y 0,35, respectivamente).Conclusiones: aunque el grado de satisfacción de la dieta de nuestro hospital es aceptable, es preciso introducir mejoras que aumenten su aceptación. El apetito se asocia a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción global alimentaria. La presencia de sal y el tipo de dieta (basal versusterapéutica) no se relacionan con una mejoría significativa de la valoración global de la dieta.

Análisis del grado de satisfacción alimentaria percibido por los pacientes en un hospital de tercer nivel / Assessment of the level of alimentary satisfaction received by patients in a tertiary hospital

Introducción: la alimentación constituye el pilar fundamental del soporte nutricional de los pacientes hospitalizados. Evaluar el grado de aceptación de la dieta es imprescindible en aras de combatir la desnutrición hospitalaria. Objetivos: a) determinar el grado de satisfacción de los pacientes en relación con las dietas; y b) analizar posibles variables asociadas a un grado de satisfacción mayor (apetito y tipo de dieta). Material y métodos: estudio descriptivo de corte transversal. Se emplea una encuesta de 17 preguntas con datos sociodemográficos, datos cualitativos, así como la valoración general del paciente. Se comparó el grado de satisfacción global en función del apetito y el tipo de dieta (terapéutica vs. basal; con sal vs. sosa) (Test no paramétric o Krustal-Wallis y T-Student para muestras independientes, respectivamente). Resultados: mil cuatrocientos trece pacientes. Edad: 53,9 ± 19 años; 51,3% mujeres. Dieta terapéutica (34,9%). Solo el 39,4% tomó dieta con sal. El 66,8% refi rió ingresos previos. La alimentación del hospital para un 43% de pacientes fue «como esperaba», mientras que para un 44,1% fue «mejor de lo que esperaba». El horario de comidas era adecuado (89,1%) y el tiempo para comer, suficiente (96,4%). En cuanto a las características de la comida servida, consideraron como buenas o muy buenas la misma el porcentaje reflejado: sabor/gusto (56.3%), olor (65,5%), cocinado (69,2%), presentación (80,4%), tamaño de ración (75,9%), calidad (73%), cantidad (77,9%), variedad (67,6%), temperatura (70,4%). La valoración global de la alimentación en una escala de 1 a 10 fue de 6,8 ± 2,3. El apetito se asoció a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción global alimentaria del paciente (p < 0,01). El tipo de dieta o la presencia de sal en la misma no se asociaron a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción con la dieta de los pacientes (p = 0,99 y 0,35, respectivamente). Conclusiones: aunque el grado de satisfacción de la dieta de nuestro hospital es aceptable, es preciso introducir mejoras que aumenten su aceptación. El apetito se asocia a un aumento significativo de la satisfacción global alimentaria. La presencia de sal y el tipo de dieta (basal versus terapéutica) no se relacionan con una mejoría significativa de la valoración global de la dieta (AU)

Introduction: Food is a key element of nutritional support of hospitalized patients. To assess the level of food acceptance is essential to fight hospitalary malnutrition. Aims: a) To determine the level of satisfaction of patients to our diets; and b) to analyse variables associated with a higher level of satisfaction (appetite and type of diet). Material and methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study. A survey was used, including socio-demographic data, qualitative data as well as the overall assessment of the patient. The global level of satisfaction was compared depending on the appetite and on the type of diet (therapeutic versus basal; with salt versus unsalted) (non-parametric Krustal-Wallis test and T-students for independent samples, respectively). Results: One thousand four hundred and thirteen patients. Age: 53.9 ± 19 year old; 51.3% women. Therapeutic diet (34.9%). Only 39.4% took a salted diet. The 66.8% confirmed previous admissions. Food hospital for 43% of patients was «as expected», while for 44.1% «better than it was expected». Meal times were adequate for 89.1% and the time for eating enough in 96.4%. About the food served, the percentage of patients who considered as good or very good: taste (56.3%), smell (65.5%), cooked (69.2%), variety (67.6%), temperature (70.4%). The global assessment of food on scale 1 to 10 was 6.8 ± 2.3. The appetite was associated with a significant increase in global food patient satisfaction (p < 0.01). The type of diet or the presence of salt were not related to a relevant increase of satisfaction with the patient’s diet (p = 0.99 y 0.35, respectively). Conclusions: Although the level of satisfaction of our hospital diet is reasonable, we should introduce improvements which enhance its acceptance. Appetite is associated with a significant increase in global food satisfaction. The presence of salt or the type of diet (basal versus therapeutic) is not related to an outstanding improvement of the overall assessment of the diet (AU)

Relationship between Mid-Upper Arm Circumference and Body Mass Index in Inpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Nutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m2), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot be weighed and measured. For this reason it is necessary to find other indicators that can be measured in these patients. OBJECTIVES: 1) Analyse the relationship between BMI and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC); 2) establish a cut-off point of MUAC equivalent to BMI <18.5 kg/m2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The anthropometric data of patients hospitalised over the period 2004-2013 were retrospectively revised. The following variables were collected: weight, height, BMI, MUAC, sex and age. RESULTS: 1373 patients were evaluated, who presented a mean weight of: 65.04±15.51 kg; height: 1.66±0.09 m; BMI: 23.48±5.03 kg/m2; MUAC: 26.95±4.50 cm; age: 56.24±16.77. MUAC correlates suitably to BMI by means of the following equation (simple linear regression): BMI = - 0.042 + 0.873 x MUAC (cm) (R2 = 0.609), with a Pearson r value of 0.78 (p<0.001). The area under the curve of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94; p<0.001). The MUAC value ≤22.5 cm presented a sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 94.5%, and a correct classification of 90%. No significant statistical differences were found in the cut-off point of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition based on sex (p = 0.115) and age (p = 0.694). CONCLUSIONS: 1) MUAC correlates positively and significantly with BMI. 2) MUAC ≤ 22.5 cm correlates properly with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m2, independent of the age or sex of the patient, although there are other alternatives. MUAC constitutes a useful tool as a marker of malnutrition, fundamentally in patients for whom weight and height cannot be determined.

[CONCORDANCE IN THE RESULTS OF CONTROL INTAKE PERFORMANCE OF 72 H BY DIFFERENT HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN A TERTIARY HOSPITAL]. / CONCORDANCIA EN LOS RESULTADOS TRAS LA REALIZACIÓN DE UN CONTROL DE INGESTAS DE 72 H POR DIFERENTE PERSONAL SANITARIO EN UN HOSPITAL DE TERCER NIVEL.

INTRODUCTION: the nutritional screening CIPA is positive when it fulfills one of the following parameters: Control food Intake (CI) 72 h < 50%; albumin < 3 g/dl; Body Mass Index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm (if BMI cannot be determined). The only parameter no totally objective is the CI so that this study seeks to reinforce its validity. OBJECTIVES: analyze the existing concordance among different health professionals when assessing a CI of 72 h. MATERIALS AND METHOD: retrospective study of patients admitted in hospitalization wards (February-October 2014). Variables considered: age, sex, health service, CI of 72 h and type of diet. The aim of CI is to assess the amount of food consumed, differing between superior or inferior intakes to 50%. It is analyzed the concordance of the results CI determined by a doctor, a nurse and a nutritionist (gold-standard) by the coefficient Kappa (K). Subsequently the sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) of positive CI were computed. RESULTS: 176 control of food intake were analyzed. Age 63.70 } 14.46 years; 42% women. Units: Digestive (22.2%), Pneumology (42%), Internal Medicine (21.6%), Nephrology (9.1%), others (5.1%). Type of diet: basal (23%), therapeutic (67%), consistency (4%), progressive (3.4%), others (2.3%). It was compared the nursing CI vs. nutritionist (K = 0.798; p < 0.001), and the doctor vs. nutritionist (K = 0.823; p < 0.001). The S and Sp of nursing vs. nutritionist was 84% and 97% while between the doctor and the nutritionist was 84% and 98% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: the concordance of the results of a CI of 72 hours (intakes < or > to 50%) performed in patients hospitalized by a doctor, nurse, and nutritionist is high, minimizing subjectivity to this parameter. The CI is helpful for its use within the routine clinical practice, and particularly within the nutritional screenings, such as CIPA.

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parametros: Control de Ingestas (CI) 72 h < 50%; albumina < 3 g/dl; Indice de Masa Corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o Circunferencia del Brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (si no se puede determinar IMC). El unico parametro no totalmente objetivo es el CI, por lo que este estudio busca reforzar la validez del mismo. Objetivos: analizar la concordancia existente entre diferentes profesionales sanitarios a la hora de evaluar un CI de 72 h. Material y métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes ingresados en plantas de hospitalizacion (febrero-octubre de 2014). Variables recogidas: edad, sexo, servicio medico, CI de 72 h y tipo de dieta. El objetivo del CI es valorar la cantidad de alimento consumido, diferenciando entre ingestas superiores o inferiores al 50%. Se analiza la concordancia de los resultados del CI dictaminados por un medico, una enfermera y un nutricionista (gold-standar) mediante el coeficiente Kappa (K). Posteriormente se calculo la sensibilidad (S) y la especificidad (E) de los CI positivos. Resultados: se analizaron 176 controles de ingestas. Edad: 63,70 } 14,46 anos; 42% mujeres. Servicios: Digestivo (22,2%), Neumologia (42%), Medicina Interna (21,6%), Nefrologia (9,1%), Otros (5,1%). Tipo de dieta: basal (23,3%), terapeutica (67%), consistencia (4%), progresion (3,4%), otros (2,3%). Se comparo el CI de enfermeria vs. nutricionista (K = 0,798; p < 0,001), y del medico vs. nutricionista (K = 0,823; p < 0,001). La S y E de enfermeria vs. nutricionista fue de 84% y 97%, mientras que entre medico y nutricionista fue de 84% y 98%, respectivamente. Conclusiones: la concordancia de los resultados de un CI de 72 horas (ingestas < o > al 50%) realizado en pacientes hospitalizados por un medico, una enfermera y un nutricionista es alta, restando subjetividad a este parametro. El CI resulta util para su uso dentro de la practica clinica habitual y, en concreto, dentro de cribados nutricionales, como el CIPA.

Concordancia en los resultados tras la realización de un control de ingestas de 72 h por diferente personal sanitario en un hospital de tercer nivel / Concordance in the results of control intake performance of 72 h by different health professionals in a tertiary hospital

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: Control de Ingestas (CI) 72 h <50%; albúmina <3 g/dl; Índice de Masa Corporal (IMC) <18,5 kg/m2 o Circunferencia del Brazo (CB) ≤22,5 cm (si no se puede determinar IMC). El único parámetro no totalmente objetivo es el CI, por lo que este estudio busca reforzar la validez del mismo. Objetivos: analizar la concordancia existente entre diferentes profesionales sanitarios a la hora de evaluar un CI de 72 h. Material y métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes ingresados en plantas de hospitalización (febrero-octubre de 2014). Variables recogidas: edad, sexo, servicio médico, CI de 72 h y tipo de dieta. El objetivo del CI es valorar la cantidad de alimento consumido, diferenciando entre ingestas superiores o inferiores al 50%. Se analiza la concordancia de los resultados del CI dictaminados por un médico, una enfermera y un nutricionista (gold-standar) mediante el coeficiente Kappa (K). Posteriormente se calculó la sensibilidad (S) y la especificidad (E) de los CI positivos. Resultados: se analizaron 176 controles de ingestas. Edad: 63,70±14,46 años; 42% mujeres. Servicios: Digestivo (22,2%), Neumología (42%), Medicina Interna (21,6%), Nefrología (9,1%), Otros (5,1%). Tipo de dieta: basal (23,3%), terapéutica (67%), consistencia (4%), progresión (3,4%), otros (2,3%). Se comparó el CI de enfermería vs. nutricionista (K=0,798; p<0,001), y del médico vs. nutricionista (K=0,823; p<0,001). La S y E de enfermería vs. nutricionista fue de 84% y 97%, mientras que entre médico y nutricionista fue de 84% y 98%, respectivamente. Conclusiones: la concordancia de los resultados de un CI de 72 horas (ingestas < o > al 50%) realizado en pacientes hospitalizados por un médico, una enfermera y un nutricionista es alta, restando subjetividad a este parámetro. El CI resulta útil para su uso dentro de la práctica clínica habitual y, en concreto, dentro de cribados nutricionales, como el CIPA (AU)

Introduction: the nutritional screening CIPA is positive when it fulfills one of the following parameters: Control food Intake (CI) 72 h <50%; albumin <3 g/dl; Body Mass Index (BMI) <18,5 kg/m2 or Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) <=22,5 cm (if BMI cannot be determined). The only parameter no totally objective is the CI so that this study seeks to reinforce its validity. Objectives: analyze the existing concordance among different health professionals when assessing a CI of 72 h. Materials and method: retrospective study of patients admitted in hospitalization wards (February-October 2014). Variables considered: age, sex, health service, CI of 72 h and type of diet. The aim of CI is to assess the amount of food consumed, differing between superior or inferior intakes to 50%. It is analyzed the concordance of the results CI determined by a doctor, a nurse and a nutritionist (gold-standard) by the coefficient Kappa (K). Subsequently the sensitivity (S) and specificity (Sp) of positive CI were computed. Results: 176 control of food intake were analyzed. Age 63.70±14.46 years; 42% women. Units: Digestive (22.2%), Pneumology (42%), Internal Medicine (21.6%), Nephrology (9.1%), others (5.1%). Type of diet: basal (23%), therapeutic (67%), consistency (4%), progressive (3.4%), others (2.3%). It was compared the nursing CI vs. nutritionist (K=0.798; p<0.001), and the doctor vs. nutritionist (K=0.823; p<0.001). The S and Sp of nursing vs. nutritionist was 84% and 97% while between the doctor and the nutritionist was 84% and 98% respectively. Conclusions: the concordance of the results of a CI of 72 hours (intakes < or > to 50%) performed in patients hospitalized by a doctor, nurse, and nutritionist is high, minimizing subjectivity to this parameter. The CI is helpful for its use within the routine clinical practice, and particularly within the nutritional screenings, such as CIPA (AU)