Factors influencing judgment of the nutritional status during NST intervention

Abstract

Although nutritional assessment should be carried out by combining multiple indicators, there is no clear standard for judging the nutritional status. During NST rounds at our hospital, opinions are sometimes divided on whether the nutritional status has improved. We examined factors that significantly affect the judgment.
Ninety‐eight patients who completed the intervention after two or more rounds between April and June 2019 were divided into three groups （improved, unchanged, and deteriorated） based on the changes in the judgment of nutritional status at the time of intervention completion and in the nutritional route at the end of the study.
At the time of intervention, there were no significant differences in any of the items, but at the end of the study, there were significant differences in gastrointestinal symptoms, PS, CONUT value, and sufficiency rate in the improvement group, and there was a significant shift in the nutritional route from infusion to oral management. However, the mean CONUT value of 5.04 in the improvement group corresponded to a moderately poor nutritional status, which was not consistent with the judgment of nutritional status. The judgment of whether the nutritional status improved was often influenced by the independence of the patients and objective indicators were undervalued.