Differences in characteristics of raters who use the visual estimation method in hospitals based on their training experiences.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Despite a clinical need, only a few studies have provided information concerning visual estimation training for raters to improve the validity of their evaluations. This study aims to describe the differences in the characteristics of raters who evaluated patients' dietary intake in hospitals using the visual estimation method based on their training experiences.

METHODS

We collected data from three hospitals in Tokyo from August to September 2016. The participants were 199 nursing staff members, and they completed a self-administered questionnaire on demographic data; working career; training in the visual estimation method; knowledge, attitude, and practice associated with nutritional care; and self-evaluation of method validity of and skills of visual estimation. We classified participants into two groups, experienced and inexperienced, based on whether they had received training. Square test, Mann-Whitney U test, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to describe the differences between these two groups in terms of their characteristics; knowledge, attitude, and practice associated with nutritional care; and self-evaluation of method validity and tips used in the visual estimation method.

RESULTS

Of the 158 staff members (79.4%) (118 nurses and 40 nursing assistants) who agreed to participate in the analysis, thirty-three participants (20.9%) were trained in the visual estimation method. Participants who had received training had better knowledge (2.70 ± 0.81, score range was 1-5) than those who had not received any training (2.34 ± 0.74, p = 0.03). Score of self-evaluation of method validity of the visual estimation method was higher in the experienced group (3.78 ± 0.61, score range was 1-5) than the inexperienced group (3.40 ± 0.66, p < 0.01). Mean total scores of using tips in the visual estimation method in the experienced and inexperienced groups were 19.6 ± 1.76 and 17.9 ± 2.28, respectively (score range was 6-24), differing significantly between the two groups (p < 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that participants who had been trained had adequate knowledge (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.05-7.35) and frequently used tips in visual estimation (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.26-2.73).

CONCLUSION

Trained participants had more required knowledge and they used visual estimation tips more frequently than participants who had not been trained in the visual estimation method. This study provides new evidence for the importance of training clinical staff members to use the visual estimation method appropriately and makes suggestions to improve the validity of the visual estimation method.