Hospital screening criteria data to identify patients with nutritional or functional needs

Patient medical records should show evidence that information on nutritional status or functional status is gathered through the application of screening criteria, when patients who are acutely or chronically unwell and who are experiencing dietary difficulties and deficiencies related to or resulting from their illness, first contact hospital services.

From the post Assessments within 24 hours (this link will open in a new tab of your current browser), it is clear that the initial medical and nursing assessments are completed within 24 hours of admission to the hospital  or when the patient’s condition indicates, the initial medical and/or nursing assessment are conducted and available earlier, for use by all those caring for the patient. This means that patients are screened for nutritional risk as part of the initial assessment with the application of screening criteria to gather information on nutritional status or functional status which is often done by nurses, must also be completed routinely within 24 hours of admission to the hospital or at an earlier time period.

Nutritional screening is usually undertaken by nurses and doctors; assessment by dietitians.

GETTY_H_062112_WeightScale

Image credit: abcnewsradioonline.com

Nurses use individual hospital screening criteria to identify patients with nutritional or functional needs like:

  • unexpected weight loss
  • gastrointestinal symptoms
  • obvious emaciation
  • pressure ulcers
  • intravenous or tube feedings

In each case, the screening criteria are developed by qualified individuals with the aim to identify those who are malnourished or ‘at risk’ of becoming so and so able to further assess and, if necessary, to provide any required patient treatment. For example, screening criteria for nutritional risk may be developed by nurses who will apply the criteria, dietitians who will supply the recommended dietary intervention, and nutritionists able to integrate nutritional needs with the other needs of the patient.

Referencing of all tools available and screening criteria used  is beyond the scope of this single post. However, I like to share with you the desirable qualities of such tools used to carry out the screening which are namely (i) accuracy of the tool(sensitivity and specificity), (ii) easy to use, (iii) reliable so as to produce similar results with repeat testing in the same circumstances and with different users where the patient’s state has not changed it must be acceptable to those being screened, (iv) does not require extensive training, and (v) does not need additional equipment.

For your information too, two commonly used tools developed for hospital-wide application and used with older adults are (i) Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and (ii) Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST).

Information through these kinds of screening criteria tools provides insight into the patient’s overall physical health. The information may also indicate that patients at risk for nutritional problems according to the criteria, receive further or more in-depth assessment of nutritional status or functional status, including a fall-risk assessment.   This information is viewed as the most effective way and an essential first step in the management of patients’ nutritional care.

The more in-depth assessment mentioned above may be necessary to identify the problem or potential nutrition risk(s) for those high risk patients in need of nutritional interventions and patients in need of rehabilitation services or other services related to their ability to function independently or at their greatest potential. Nurses refer these patients in need of a functional assessment according to the criteria to the hospital Dietitian for full nutrition assessment.. The dietitian will usually first review the medical record of referred patients. Everything from diagnosis, social history, medical history, medication, laboratory data and assessment, and evaluations performed by other medical/clinical personnel are scrutinised  According to Jacqueline (2011), reading the medical record which contains the notes of other clinicians provides necessary context for effective management of the condition(s) being assessed. A dietitian may then take anthropometric measurements in addition to a subjective nutritional assessment.

Subjective data pertaining to the nutritional assessment, identify abnormal findings and client strengths which could include for example, Patient A who is a female, stated age 42 years; reports she had a fever for 2 days a week ago; drinks 4 to 6 glasses of water daily) and anthropometric measurements i.e the objective data could include for example, Height: 5 feet, 5 inches (165 cm); body frame: medium; weight: 128 lb (58 kg); BMI: 21.3). The data is usually clustered to reveal any significant patterns or abnormalities. These data may then be used to make clinical judgments about the status of the patient’s nutritional health.

At this point, I like you to take note that the dietitian uses assessments techniques which vary for the mother and unborn child as well as the complications associated with pregnancy, the lactating mother, infants and children.

Once the dietitian has a a clear understanding of the medical diagnosis and its nutritional implications, intervention is initiated, the patient is carefully monitored to ensure that goals are met and the desired outcome is achieved.

Do take note that if you are working at a hospital which is already Joint Commission International (JCI) accredited or seeking JCI accreditation status or undergoing re-survey for JCI accreditation status, your hospital will need to comply with JCI Standard AOP.1.6 which states that “Patients are screened for nutritional status and functional needs and are referred for further assessment and treatment when necessary.”

I am sure you are already aware that your hospital has in place a program which evaluates its patients’ risk for falls – which could include fall history, medications-and-alcohol-consumption review, gait and balance screening, and walking aids used by the patient, and monitors both the intended and unintended consequences – for example, the inappropriate use of physical restraints or fluid intake restriction which may result in injury, impaired circulation, or compromised skin integrity of measures, taken to reduce falls.

JCI believes that compliance to JCI Standard AOP.1.6 as part of the initial assessment using criteria developed by qualified individuals to identify patients who require further functional assessment, further strengthens a hospital’s fall-risk reduction program.

It is common in hospitals when patients are provided dietetic services after dietary orders by the doctor attending are documented in the patient medical record. Health Information Management (HIM) / Medical Records (MR) practitioners will find within medical records, progress notes with the nutritional care of the patient met in accordance with the doctor’s orders and also the Dietary Progress Note, a progress note documented by the hospital dietitian as part of recognised dietary practices which includes:

  • patient’s dietary needs
  • any dietary observations made by staff (e.g., amount of meal consumed,food likes/dislikes, and so on)

HIM / MR practitioners who are members of a closed Medical Record Review, need to be aware that the Medical Record Review Tool will assess and determine the degree of compliance with standards and elements of performance relating to nutrition care given by the JCI Standard AOP.1.6, when there is evidence in the medical record of patients screened for nutritional status and functional needs.

References:

  1. Jacqueline, CM, 2011, Detitian’s guide to assessment and documentation, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, USA
  2. Janet, W, & Jane HK, 2010, Health assessment in nursing, 4th edn, Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  3. Joint Commission International, 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA
  4. Nutritional screening and assessment, Nursing Times.net, viewed 17 February 2013, < http://www.nursingtimes.net/nutritional-screening-and-assessment/199381.article >
  5. Using nutritional screening tools to identify malnourished patients, Nursing Times.net, viewed 17 February 2013, < http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/nutrition/using-nutritional-screening-tools-to-identify-malnourished-patients/1958881.article >
  6. Michelle, AG & Mary, JB 2011, Essentials of Health Information Management: Principles and Practices, 2nd edn, Delmar, Cengage Learning, NY, USA
  7. Sue, CD & Patricia, KL 2011, Fundamentals of Nursing: Standards & Practice, 4th edn, Delmar, Cengage Learning, NY, USA

Remaining 3 posts on medical record documentation

I have based my previous posts on medical record documentation on the Joint Commission International (JCI) Standards found in the Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th Edition and The Joint Commission International Accreditation Hospital Survey Process Guide, 3rd Edition.

To round-up writing about all matters related to medical record documentation based on JCI’s Standards, I have recently discovered in the course of my study of the above mentioned manual/guide, that I need to write about three assessment activities to include under medical record documentation, before I can categorically state I have completed all of the required contents of a medical record to fully satisfy all JCI’s Standards related to medical record documentation and the process of a closed Medical Records Review.

To this effect, the remaining 3 posts on medical record documentation will cover :

  1. the information gathered at the initial medical and/or nursing assessment when patients are screened for nutritional status and functional needs and are referred for further assessment and treatment when necessary, including a fall-risk assessment;
  2. the need for discharge planning at the initial assessment for those patients for whom discharge planning is critical due to age, lack of mobility, continuing medical and nursing needs, or assistance with activities of daily living, among others; and
  3. reassessment conducted by a doctor in the ongoing patient care and when results are noted in the patient’s medical record for the information and use of all those caring for the patient.

For Health Information Management (HIM) / Medical Records (MR) practitioners working at a hospital which is already JCI accredited or seeking JCI accreditation status or undergoing re-survey for JCI accreditation statusyou will need to take note that all of the 3 assessment activities listed above are included in the closed Medical Records Review.Tool. 

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

Joint Commission International 2010, The Joint Commission International Accreditation Hospital Survey Process Guide, 3rd edn, JCI, USA

MSQH – Introductory Post

MSQH-SS-7MSQH short for the Malaysian Society for Quality in Health, is the sole Malaysian accreditation body with nationally established standards for health care facilities and services since 1997, dedicated to improving the quality of Malaysia’s health care through voluntary accreditation.

MSQH’s standards cover all aspects of healthcare, beginning with the patient’s point of entry into the healthcare system, patient’s interphase with healthcare providers, staff ethics, training and their competencies and outcomes of care.

MSQH avails that its standards are at par with other hospital accreditation standards like the Joint Commission International (JCI) Standards after the International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua) had granted MSQH the highly esteemed honor that “accredits the accreditors” and provides worldwide recognition for accredited organisations like MSQH that meet approved international standards under ISQua’s International Accreditation Program (IAP).  This highly esteemed honor for the period from August 2008 to July 2012 reinforces that MSQH’s standards meet the highest international benchmark.

Effective January 2013, all MSQH accredited hospitals are surveyed once every four years, submit the 18 month and 30 month compliance reports, and will also undergo ‘Surprise Surveillance’ for continuous compliance based on the 4th Edition of the MSQH Hospital Accreditation Standards.

In this introductory post and in subsequent posts, I shall begin blogging about the MSQH SERVICE STANDARD 7 Health Information Management System based on the 4th Edition of the MSQH Hospital Accreditation Standards.

This standard is divided into 6 topics as follows:

TOPIC 7.1: ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT

TOPIC 7.2: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

TOPIC 7.3: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

TOPIC 7.4: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

TOPIC 7.5: SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES

TOPIC 7.6: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Topic 1 to Topic 5 each have one standard, while Topic 6 has 2 standards. All the standards have a list of criteria for compliance.

I shall be writing about Topic 7.1 in my next post on MSQH SERVICE STANDARD 7.

References:
Malaysian Society for Quality in Health 2013, About, viewed 2 February 2013, <http://www.msqh.com.my/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54>

Malaysian Society for Quality in Health 2013, CEO’s Message, viewed 2 February 2013, <http://www.msqh.com.my/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=61>

Making comparisons via data analysis for improvement efforts

The hospital you work at will have many data-driven processes in place to assess ways to improve patient care. Data is collected and analysed, data analysed is usually used to evaluate its current performance and also to be able to compare your hospital’s performance with other similar hospitals, all of which is to find the opportunity to improve in four ways:

  1. analysis of its past historical data with itself over time , such as month to month, or one year to the next or last year’s value to the current year, or a time series of several years, provides an initial baseline for examining trends and allows judgment on the direction of the measure;
  2. making competitor and industry comparisons what other similar hospitals are achieving provides crude guidelines. Competitor and industry comparisons has direct bearing on the hospital’s profitability, especially the privately owned hospital;
  3. (a) with standards, such as those set by accrediting and professional bodies such as through reference databases collected and analysed from data on hospital performance frequently made available through publicly available hospital quality comparison Web sites aimed at patients for example, data that can be viewed from Hospital Compare from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Quality Check from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Leapfrog Group’s Hospital Quality and Safety Survey Results; comparing standards set for example by the Joint Commission International (JCI) also enables a hospital to improve its desirable practices; also, (b) it is common knowledge that hospitals are legally responsible for ensuring the quality of medical care; as healthcare practitioners we are aware that the hospital management of a public hospital or in the case of a private hospital – the hospital board, is responsible for exercising the duty of care based on those set by laws or regulations – for example the legal requirement of the Private Healthcare Facilities And Services (Private Medical Clinics Or Private Dental Clinics) Regulations 2006, Private Healthcare Facilities And Services Act 1998 in Malaysia, on behalf of the patients and the community and on behalf of doctors who desire to participate, and the hospital as a whole is liable for damages should they fail.; and
  4. with recognised desirable practices identified in the literature as best or better practices or practice guidelines, for example in determining the success or failure of medical audit assessment by monitoring actual or suspected problems through (i) sentinel cases, (ii) criterion-based audit, (iii) comparison of small groups in the same field applicable at local hospital levels, (iv) conducting surveys like patient satisfaction surveys, and (v) peer review.

These comparisons help the hospital understand the source and nature of undesirable change and help focus improvement efforts that can be achieved through re-education, retraining, facilitation in small groups, or by more active persuasion.

If your hospital which is already JCI accredited or seeking JCI accreditation status or undergoing re-survey for JCI accreditation status, then it must be able to show evidence that it has a process or processes that incorporates data analysis measures to make relevant comparisons (i) over time within the hospital, (ii) with similar hospitals when possible, (iii) with standards when appropriate , and (iv) with known desirable practices, in order to satisfy the JCI QPS.4.2 Standard which states that “The analysis process includes comparisons internally, with other organizations when available, and with scientific standards and desirable practices.

How do Health Information Management (HIM) / Medical Records (MR) practitioners fit into this JCI Standard?

I can think of two ways as I come to the end of  this post.

In my opinion, HIM /MR practitioners must facilitate diagnostic excellence from rapid communication of patients’ current needs and understanding of the clinically indicated responses by ensuring that recording is made faster and more complete in medical records , include safeguards to improve accuracy, and speed transmission of patient-related information. For example, the penalty for incomplete medical records (usually a temporary loss of privileges) is quickly and routinely applied. A word of caution though about imposing the penalty. As we are fully aware, reality, however, does not always match with what is desired since I believe many doctors still enjoy the  part of their job which is talking to their patients and in this context, medical records tends to assume lesser importance. I think it is also not desirable to have a culture among doctors to be obsessive record writers who ‘spent all the time writing and didn’t even look at me’, a common complaint among patients.

HIM /MR practitioners must also exercise caution in the retrieval of medical records of the sample of patients designated as appropriate for example,a medical records audit. For example, the retrieval of medical record through diagnostic coding for Myocardial Infarction (MI) cases, after a patient’s discharge, may not enable the retrieval of a record of a patient who had a dissecting aneurysm of the aorta mismanaged as an MI for the first 12 hours of his/her care

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

Kenneth RW, and John RG 2010, The well-managed healthcare organization, 7th edn, Health Administration Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Srinivasan, AV 2008, Managing a modern hospital, 2nd edn, Response Books, SAGE, New Delhi, India

8 ways for identifying opportunities for improvement and documenting a hospital’s performance level

8-ways-for-identifying-opportunities-for--improvement-and--documenting-a-hospital’s--performance-level-2

References:
Joint Commission International 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA