Comparison of Professional Judgment Versus an Algorithm for Nutrition Status Classification

OBJECTIVES: The classification of a patient's nutrition status is important for identifying patients who require nutrition care, for designing effective nutrition interventions, and for measuring severity of illness. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of two variants of the Department of Veterans Affairs' nutrition status classification: professional judgment versus an algorithm. METHODS: The study consisted of two phases, both of which included providing a sample of approximately 60 registered dietitians and 60 clinical dietetic technicians with data on 16 (phase I) and 20 (phase II) patients, to which they assigned nutrition statuses using both professional judgment and the algorithm. Improvements in instructions and training were implemented between the two phases. Interrater reliability of the responses was calculated, and content validity was measured by comparing the staff's responses with those of an expert panel. RESULTS: Reliability improved significantly between phases for both professional judgment and the algorithm. Greater reliability and validity were observed with use of the algorithm, by both dietitians and technicians, during both phases. CONCLUSION: Classification of a patient's nutrition status is important in the delivery of cost-effective health care. The Department of Veterans Affairs' nutrition status classification is a good one for assessing nutrition status quickly and reliably, especially when an algorithm is used. The results underscore the advantages of a classification system based on an algorithm when the system is designed to be used by many different staff across multiple facilities

Algorithm · Health care · Inter-rater reliability · Psychological intervention · Rating scale · Reliability (semiconductor) · Veterans Affairs · Computer Science · Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education · Medicine · Nursing · Nutrition and Health in Aging · Obesity and Health Practices · Psychology

• Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions

  Open Access•Joseph L Fleiss, Bruce Levin et al.•Statistical methods for rates and…•2003

  Incluir item

• On the Methods and Theory of Reliability

  John J Bartko, Will Tom Carpenter et al.•The Journal of Nervous and Mental…•1976

  Incluir item

• Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment

  Open Access•Robyn M Dawes, David Faust et al.•Science•1989

  Incluir item

• Nutrition and health risks in the elderly

  Barbara M Posner, Alan M Jette et al.•American Journal of Public Health•1993

  Incluir item