Suppr超能文献

在未提供完成摄入量工具的额外培训时,作为常规护理一部分由护理人员填写的食物摄入量图表的准确性。

The accuracy of food intake charts completed by nursing staff as part of usual care when no additional training in completing intake tools is provided.

作者信息

Palmer Michelle, Miller Katrina, Noble Sally

机构信息

Queensland Health, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, QLD, 4131, Australia.

Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia.

出版信息

Clin Nutr. 2015 Aug;34(4):761-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.09.001. Epub 2014 Sep 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dietary intake tools that require ongoing training may not be valid and useful in a busy acute care setting. We compared nutrient intakes of inpatients using weighed food records (WFR) with food charts completed by nursing staff who hadn't received recent intake tool training.

METHODS

The weight of individual foods remaining on patients' main meal trays was deducted from a reference tray weight. Mid-meal consumption was determined by patient report. WFR and food charts were converted to nutrients using suppliers' information. Food charts were also converted using a ready reckoner. Agreement between methods was tested using t-tests, cross-classification, correlations and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Forty-three intake days were compared (n = 15 inpatients, 77 ± 8 yrs, 60%M). Most (93%) food intake charts were incomplete. Energy and protein intakes across meals were similar between food charts and WFR (754 ± 442 kCal, 29.9 ± 19.7 g protein; p > 0.05). Significant correlations were observed at breakfast between WFR and food chart ready reckoner (energy: r = 0.793; protein: r = 0.588; p < 0.01), and breakfast, morning tea and lunch using the food chart supplier's information (energy: r = 0.767-0.898, p < 0.05; protein: r = 0.786-0.912, p < 0.05). Cross-classification was unacceptable (11-33% gross misclassification), and mealtime limits of agreement were wide (-497-+552 kCal, -27-+36 g protein).

CONCLUSIONS

The poor agreement between intake methods suggests that food charts completed by nursing staff as part of usual care with no additional intake tool training may not accurately measure inpatient intake. Given that nursing staff may require ongoing training on completion of intake tools, alternative efficient and accurate means of measuring inpatient intake may be needed.

摘要

背景与目的

在繁忙的急性护理环境中,需要持续培训的膳食摄入量评估工具可能无效且无用。我们比较了使用称重食物记录(WFR)的住院患者与未接受近期摄入量评估工具培训的护理人员填写的食物图表所记录的营养摄入量。

方法

从参考餐盘重量中减去患者主餐盘上剩余的每种食物的重量。餐中摄入量由患者报告确定。使用供应商信息将WFR和食物图表转换为营养素。食物图表也使用速算表进行转换。使用t检验、交叉分类、相关性分析和布兰德-奥特曼图来检验两种方法之间的一致性。

结果

比较了43个摄入量记录日(n = 15名住院患者,年龄77±8岁,60%为男性)。大多数(93%)食物摄入量图表不完整。食物图表和WFR记录的各餐能量和蛋白质摄入量相似(754±442千卡,29.9±19.7克蛋白质;p>0.05)。在早餐时,WFR与食物图表速算表之间观察到显著相关性(能量:r = 0.793;蛋白质:r = 0.588;p<0.01),并且使用食物图表供应商信息时,早餐、早茶和午餐之间也存在显著相关性(能量:r = 0.767 - 0.898,p<0.05;蛋白质:r = 0.786 - 0.912,p<0.05)。交叉分类结果不可接受(总错误分类率为11 - 33%),餐间一致性界限较宽(-497 - +552千卡,-27 - +36克蛋白质)。

结论

摄入量评估方法之间的一致性较差,这表明护理人员在常规护理中填写的食物图表,且未接受额外的摄入量评估工具培训,可能无法准确测量住院患者的摄入量。鉴于护理人员可能需要持续接受关于填写摄入量评估工具的培训,可能需要其他高效且准确的测量住院患者摄入量的方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验