ObjectiveTo investigate the status of undernutrition, nutritional risk as well as nutritional support in patients with gastrointestinal tumor. MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited from Septemper 2009 to June 2011. Patients were screened by using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) at admission. Data of the nutritional risk, application of nutritional support, complications, and tumor staging were collected. ResultsNine hundred and sixty-one patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited, the overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 38.9% (374/961) at admission, 49.2% （176/358） in gastric tumor and 32.8% （198/603） in colorectal tumor, respectively. The highest prevalence was found in stage Ⅳ gastric tumor 〔87.3% (48/55)〕 and colorectal tumor 〔58.8% (50/85)〕 while the lowest prevalence was found in stage ⅡA gastric tumor 〔16.1% (5/31)〕 and stageⅠcolorectal tumor 〔9.8% (6/61)〕. 62.3% (152/244) of gastric tumor patients with nutritional risk while 48.6% (144/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. 37.7% (92/244) of colorectal tumor patients with nutritional risk while 51.4% (152/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. The ratio of parental nutrition and enteral nutrition was 1.251. The rate of complications in the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk was higher than that in the patients without nutritional risk 〔32.4% (121/374) versus 20.4% (120/587), P=0.000 0〕. For the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk, the complication rate of the patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support 〔27.5% (67/244) versus 40.8% (53/130), P=0.008 6〕. For the gas trointestinal tumor patients without nutritional risk, the complication rate of gastric tumor patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support (P=0.039 6), while the complication rate was not significantly different in the colorectal tumor patients with nutritional support or not (P=0.464 7). ConclusionsPatient with gastrointestinal tumor has a high nutritional risk which is related to tumor staging. Patients with nutritional risk have more complications, and nutritional support is beneficial to the patients with nutritional risk by a lower complication rate.
目的 运用营养风险筛查2002工具对普外科患者进行营养风险状况和营养支持现状调查。 方法 对2011年3月－8月在普外科新入院的520例患者进行营养风险筛查，判定是否存在营养风险，同时用已纳入患者现有的临床营养支持状况，分析目前临床营养支持的合理性。 结果 476例（91.5%）患者完成筛查。有营养风险者156例（32.8%），无营养风险者320例（67.2%）。在有营养风险患者中，实施临床营养支持者有131例，占84.0%；无营养风险患者中，实施了营养支持者占40.3%。 结论 基层县级医院普外科入院患者营养风险发生率较高，并且临床营养支持合理性尚待改善。
【摘要】 目的 评价以问题为基础式学习与病例讨论式学习在“临床风险筛查”培训教学过程中的应用效果。 方法 2010年6月-2011年7月，联合应用两种教学方法对参训医学生进行培训，然后进行临床资料采集、资料整理等实践活动。最后，对学生培训效果进行总结。 结果 共培训医学生50人，并对398例患者进行营养风险筛查。45人（90%）参与者认为此教学方式能激发自身主动学习兴趣，40人（80%）认为通过此次培训能够使学生逐步建立科学研究的思维方式，但有20人（40%）认为短期内采用两种教学方式能够对论文写作、统计学理论和实践等方面能力的提高有促进作用。影响医学生科研能力培训效果的主要因素集中体现在学习任务量的加重、对新教学方法不适应、自学能力三方面。 结论 联合应用问题为基础式学习与病例讨论式学习教学模式，在提高医学生学习主动性、积极性、团队合作及人际沟通能力等方面有优势，但尚存部分问题需要进一步解决。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based study (CBS) in clinical nutritional risk screening training program. Methods All the students were trained by the combination methods of PBL and CBS. Clinical assessment, data collection and the collection of samples were conducted by the students. Finally, the impact of the new teaching strategy was assessed. Results From June 2010 to July 2011, there were a total of 50 students who attended the training program from various departments, and 398 patients were screened for nutritional risk. Forty-five students (90%) thought that this teaching method could inspire their interest in study; 40 students (80%) thought that this teaching method could help them establish a scientific way of thinking. Students who thought this teaching methodology could contribute to their enhancement of writing and statistical skills accounted for only 40 percent of the total enrollment. “High learning burden”, “difficulty in adapting to the new teaching methods” and “the ability of self-study” were the main factors which affected the motivation of students. Conclusions Combined applications of PBL and CBS have advantages in improving students′ learning initiative and enthusiasm, and developing the abilities of team cooperation and interpersonal communication skills. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed.
ObjectiveTo introduce the progresses and applications of nutritional status assessment in hospitalized patients. MethodsThe related literatures of nutritional status assessment were reviewed. ResultsThe rates of malnutrition and nutritional risk were high in hospitalized patients worldwide. Traditional nutrition assessment tools were not in common use in all hospitalized patients. All clinical health care workers should use the most suitable tool when faced with different patients. ConclusionAll hospitalized patients should be screened for nutritional risk on admission in order to improve clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs.
ObjectiveTo investigate the nutritional risk, incidence of malnutrition, and clinical application of nutrition support in hospitalized patients with gastric cancer by the nutritional risk screening (NRS) 2002 score summary table. MethodsFrom June 2009 to February 2010, nutritional risk screen and application of clinical nutritional support were carried out in the hospitalized patients with gastric cancer in this hospital. Nutritional risk was assessed case-by-case according to the severity of illness, nutritional status 〔including body mass index (BMI), recent changes in body weight and eating〕 and patients age. NRS ≥3 was accepted as nutritionally at-risk, while NRS lt;3 no nutritional risk; BMI lt;18.5 kg/m2 (or albumin lt;30 g/L) combined with clinical conditions was judged to be malnourished. Results Three hundreds and eighty-six patients were included, 329 of which completed the NRS2002 screening. One hundred and sixty-five patients (50.15%) were at nutritional risk, while another 164 (49.85%) were no nutritional risk. Malnutrition was found in 57 patients (17.33%). By gender, male malnourished patients and nutritionally at-risk patients were accounting for 16.45% (38/231) and 48.05% (111/231) respectively, while female nutritionally at-risk patients and malnourished patients were accounting for 55.1% (54/98) and 19.39% (19/98) respectively, 72.04% (237/329) of the screened patients accepted clinical nutrition support, among which, 115 patients were at nutritional risk, accounting for 69.70% in that group, and 122 patients were no nutritional risk, accounting for 74.39% in that group. ConclusionsThe incidences of malnutrition and nutritionally at-risk in hospitalized gastric cancer patients are high. And irrationality of clinical nutrition support exists. Evidence-based guidelines are required to improve the nutritional status of support.
ObjectiveTo investigate the guidance of preoperative nutritional risk screening in perioperative nutrition support for colon cancer, in order to provide evidence for the rationally clinical application of nutrition support. MethodsNutritional risk screening was carried out in 95 hospitalized patients with colon cancer who were treated in the Liao He Oil Center Hospital from Jul. 2012 to Jul. 2014, with the nutritional risk screening 2002 score summary table. Patients were divided into nutritional risk group and non-nutritional risk group according to the screening results, and postoperative bowel function recovery and nutritional indicators were compared between patients who received perioperative nutrition support according to the screening results and those who did not. ResultsThere were 29 patients received perioperative nutrition support among 53 patients at nutritional risk and 19 patients received perioperative nutrition support among 42 patients without nutritional risk. Among 53 patients at nutritional risk, the time to first flatus, time to first defecation, hospital stay, postoperative complications rate, and postoperative recurrence/metastasis rate of patients who received perioperative nutrition support were shorter or lower than those of patients who didn't receive perioperative nutrition support (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in mortality (P≥0.05); in addition, the levels of albumin, prealbumin, and transferring on 7-day after surgery were all higher in patients received perioperative nutrition support (P<0.05). Among 42 patients without nutritional risk, there was no significant difference in time to first flatus, time to first defecation, hospital stay, postoperative complications rate, postoperative recurrence/metastasis rate, and levels of albumin, prealbumin, and transferring on 1- and 7-day after surgery between patients received perioperative nutrition support and those who did not (P>0.05). ConclusionsIt is important to evaluate the nutritional risk in hospitalized patients with colon cancer. Nutritional support is benefical to the patients with nutritional risk, but it isn't necessary to patients without nutritional risk.
ObjectiveTo investigate the association between the preoperative nutritional risk and anastomotic leakage following anterior resection for the rectal cancer. MethodsA total of 321 patients with rectal cancer underwent anterior resection in our hospital between January 2008 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative nutritional status was evaluated using NRS 2002. Correlation of clinicopathologic characteristics with postoperative anastomotic leakage was evaluated using single factor analysis and Logistic regression model. ResultsAmong the 321 patients, the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage was 5.6% (18/321). Single factor analysis showed that the NRS2002 score≥3, clinicalpathologic stage (Ⅲ-Ⅳstage) and distance of tumor from the anal verge were the risk factors of anastomotic leakage after anterior leakage following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the NRS2002 score (OR=4.125, 95% CI=2.062-7.004), clinicalpathologic stage (OR=3.334, 95% CI=2.062-7.004) and the distance of tumor from the anal verge (OR=2.341, 95% CI=2.559-15.838) were the independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior leakage following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Conciusions Preoperative NRS2002 score is helpful to predict the risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Nutrition education should be strengthened to decrease the morbidity of the anastomotic leakage following anterior resection for the patients who's NRS2002 score≥3.