Dietitians place feeding tubes?

Department of Surgery, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta 30912, USA.
Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.93). 10/2002; 18(9):778-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(02)00820-1
Source: PubMed
18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The benefits of enteral nutrition when compared with parenteral nutrition are well established. However, provision of enteral nutrition may not occur for several reasons, including lack of optimal feeding access. Gastric feeding is easier to initiate, but many hospitalized patients are intolerant to gastric feeding, although they can tolerate small bowel feeding. Many institutions rely on costly methods for placing small bowel feeding tubes. Our goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-developed protocol for bedside-blind placement of postpyloric feeding tubes.
    Nutrition 10/2003; 19(10):843-846. DOI:10.1016/S0899-9007(03)00163-1 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In contrast to the intensive care unit, little is known of the percentage of formula delivered to patients receiving enteral tube feeding (ETF) on general wards or of the complications that affect its delivery. This study prospectively investigated the incidence of nasogastric extubation and diarrhea in patients starting ETF on general wards and examined their effect on formula delivery. In a prospective observational study, the volume of formula delivered to patients receiving ETF on general wards was compared with the volume prescribed. The incidence of nasogastric extubation and diarrhea was measured and its effect on formula delivery calculated. Twenty-eight patients were monitored for a total of 319 patient days. The mean +/- SD volume of formula prescribed was 1460 +/- 213 mL/d, whereas the mean volume delivered was only 1280 +/- 418 mL/d (P < 0.001), representing a mean percentage delivery of 88 +/- 25% of prescribed formula. Nasogastric extubation occurred in 17 of 28 patients (60%), affecting 53 of the 319 patient days (17%). The percentage of formula delivered on days when the nasogastric tube remained in situ was 96 +/- 12% and on days when nasogastric extubation occurred it was only 45 +/- 31% (P < 0.001). Diarrhea affected 39 of 319 patient days (12%) but there was no difference in formula delivery on days when diarrhea did or did not occur (78% versus 89%, P = 0.295). There was a significant, albeit small, negative correlation between the daily stool score and formula delivery (correlation coefficient -0.216, P < 0.001). Formula delivery is marginally suboptimal in patients receiving ETF on general wards. Nasogastric extubation is common and results in an inherent cessation of ETF until the nasogastric tube is replaced and is therefore a major factor impeding formula delivery. Diarrhea is also common but does not result in significant reductions in formula delivery.
    Nutrition 11/2006; 22(10):1025-31. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2006.07.004 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some advanced practice nutrition support dietitians have added small bowel feeding tube placement to their scope of responsibility. This is due, in part, to the challenges of gaining early enteral access in patients with functioning GI tracts. Emerging literature supports the practice of skilled practitioners placing feeding tubes at bedside. A variety of methods can be used to place tubes at the bedside. The nutrition support dietitian must understand licensure and liability considerations to perform this invasive procedure. This article will review literature reports of dietitians placing feeding tubes and provide information on the methods used, training and competencies required, and legal issues involved.
    Nutrition in Clinical Practice 06/2010; 25(3):270-6. DOI:10.1177/0884533610368703 · 2.40 Impact Factor