Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in two general paediatric wards in a public hospital. SGNA and STAMP were performed on 82 children (52 boys and 30 girls) of age 1-7 years. The scores from both methods were compared against Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society of Parental and Enteral Nutrition Consensus Statement for identification of paediatric malnutrition. The objective measurements include anthropometry (weight, height and mid-arm circumference), dietary intake and biochemical markers (C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes and serum albumin). Kappa agreement between methods, sensitivity, specificity and cross-classification were computed.
Results: SGNA and STAMP identified 45% and 79% of the children to be at risk of malnutrition, respectively. Using a compendium of objective parameters, 46% of the children were confirmed to be malnourished. The agreement between SGNA and objective measurements (k = 0.337) was stronger than between STAMP and objective measurements (k = 0.052) in evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalized children. SGNA also has a 4-fold higher specificity (70.45%) than STAMP (18.18%) in detecting children who are malnourished.
Conclusion: SGNA is a valid nutrition assessment tool in diagnosing malnutrition status among hospitalized children in Malaysia. The discrepancy in specificity values between the two methods explains the distinguished roles between SGNA and STAMP. The use of STAMP will have to be followed up with a more valid tool such as SGNA to verify the actual nutrition status of the paediatric population.
METHODS: This research utilised two methods of qualitative research (document review and focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 25 participants from four stakeholders (higher education providers, employers, associations and regulatory bodies). Both deductive and inductive thematic content analysis were used to explore, develop and define emergent codes, examined along with existing knowledge on the subject matter.
RESULTS: Sixteen codes emerged from the FGDs, with risk of harm, set of competency and skills, formal qualification, defined scope of practice, relevant training and professional working within the healthcare team being the six most frequent codes. The frequencies for these six codes were 62, 46, 40, 37, 36 and 18, correspondingly. The risk of harm towards patients was directly or indirectly involved with patient handling and also relates to the potential harms that may implicate the practitioners themselves in performing their responsibilities as the important criterion highlighted in the present research, followed by set of competency and skills.
CONCLUSIONS: For defining the PAH in Malaysia, the emerged criteria appear interrelated and co-exist in milieu, especially for the risk of harm and set of competency and skills, with no single criterion that can define PAH fully. Hence, the integration of all the empirically identified criteria must be considered to adequately define the PAH. As such, the findings must be duly considered by policymakers in performing suitable consolidation of healthcare governance to formulate the appropriate regulations and policies for promoting the enhanced framework of allied health practitioners in Malaysia.