Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Malnutrition screening is the critical first step in the Nutrition Care Process, and you're being tested on your ability to select the right tool for the right population in the right setting. These tools aren't interchangeable—each was designed with specific patient populations, clinical environments, and assessment parameters in mind. Understanding the underlying methodology of each tool (whether it relies on objective measures like BMI and lab values, subjective clinical judgment, or patient self-report) will help you answer exam questions about when to use which screening approach.
Beyond simple identification, these tools connect to bigger course concepts: sensitivity vs. specificity in screening, the difference between screening and assessment, and how disease severity impacts nutritional risk. When you encounter a case study asking which tool to use for a hospitalized oncology patient versus a community-dwelling older adult, you need to know the rationale behind each recommendation. Don't just memorize tool names and their acronyms—know what type of data each tool collects and why that matters for the population it serves.
These tools prioritize speed and simplicity, using just a few targeted questions to flag at-risk individuals. The underlying principle is that brief, focused questions about weight loss and appetite can effectively identify most patients needing further nutritional assessment.
Compare: MST vs. SNAQ—both use weight loss and appetite as key indicators, but MST is clinician-administered for inpatient efficiency while SNAQ is patient-completed for outpatient autonomy. If asked about screening in a busy clinic where staff time is limited, SNAQ is your answer.
These tools use measurable parameters like BMI, weight loss percentages, and disease factors to generate risk scores. The methodology here emphasizes reproducibility—different clinicians using the same data should reach the same conclusion.
Compare: MUST vs. NRS-2002—both generate numerical risk scores, but NRS-2002 explicitly weights disease severity while MUST considers acute disease as a binary yes/no factor. For hospitalized patients with significant illness burden, NRS-2002 may capture risk more precisely.
These tools go beyond screening to provide detailed nutritional evaluation through clinical judgment and physical examination. The methodology combines objective findings with clinician interpretation, requiring more training but yielding richer diagnostic information.
Compare: SGA vs. MNA—both provide comprehensive assessment rather than just screening, but MNA is population-specific (older adults) while SGA is generalizable across age groups. On an exam asking about a 78-year-old in long-term care, MNA is the targeted choice; for a 45-year-old surgical patient, SGA applies.
These tools incorporate patient self-report as a core component, recognizing that patients provide unique insight into their nutritional status and symptoms. The methodology values subjective experience alongside clinical observation, particularly important in populations with complex symptom burdens.
Compare: SGA vs. PG-SGA—PG-SGA evolved from SGA but shifts initial data collection to the patient and adds symptom assessment. For oncology patients experiencing treatment side effects, PG-SGA captures the full picture; standard SGA works for general medical populations.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Rapid inpatient screening | MST, NRS-2002 |
| Outpatient/self-administered | SNAQ, MNA short-form |
| Algorithm with clear action steps | MUST, NRS-2002 |
| Requires laboratory values | NRI (serum albumin) |
| Geriatric populations | MNA |
| Oncology/palliative care | PG-SGA |
| Comprehensive clinical assessment | SGA, MNA full assessment |
| Incorporates disease severity | NRS-2002, NRI |
A 72-year-old patient is admitted to a long-term care facility. Which screening tool was specifically designed and validated for this population, and what non-nutritional factors does it assess?
Compare MST and MUST: both are used in hospital settings, but how do their methodologies differ in terms of data collected and scoring approach?
An oncology dietitian needs to assess a patient undergoing chemotherapy who reports severe nausea and taste changes. Which tool would best capture both nutritional status and treatment-related symptoms, and why?
NRS-2002 and NRI both assess hospitalized patients, but they differ in one key requirement. What is it, and how might this affect which tool you select in a resource-limited setting?
FRQ-style prompt: A hospital is implementing a new malnutrition screening protocol. Explain why you might choose MUST over SGA for initial screening, then describe when you would escalate to SGA for comprehensive assessment.