Assessing Nutrition Status in an Outpatient Wound Center: A Feasibility Study
Topic of Interest
Interprofessional Collaboration
Abstract
Assessing Nutrition Status in an Outpatient Wound Center: A Feasibility Study
Background and Significance
Adequate nutrition is necessary for wound healing, yet there is little consensus identifying a particular tool to measure the degree of malnutrition in patients with chronic wounds, however, the Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is well-respected by dietitians. Early identification of patients at risk for malnutrition and other barriers to healing could minimize morbidity and trigger the implementation of interventions to improve outcomes in this population.
Evaluation Methods
The PG-SGA, Food Security, and demographic survey was used. The PG-SGA has two parts: a self-report nutrition status survey instrument and a structured clinical assessment performed by a Registered Dietitian that generates a risk score. A convenience sample of patients seeking care for their chronic wounds in an outpatient wound clinic in Northeastern Ohio were recruited for participation. Since the aim of the study was feasibility, a sample of 15 patients was used.
Outcomes
Of the 6 benchmarks related to process and resources established in the research protocol, only time taken for the participant to complete the patient potion of the survey was not achieved. The five remaining benchmarks attained results well within the criteria.
Two participants reported 7 or more symptoms that prevented them from eating. Based upon interpretation of total PG-SGA scores, all participants would require patient education related to nutrition and symptom management. Twelve participants (80%) would require intervention by a dietician, and two (13%) show a critical need for symptom management and nutrition intervention.
Implications
In consideration of the feasibility endpoint criteria, it is feasible to conduct a larger study if resources in terms of staff time were approved. However, the degree of ambiguity and subjectivity in the patient-generated portion of the tool may skew the validity of the results in this population. Further study would require re-examination of the tool.