Drug administration via nasogastric tube.

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University, Belfast.
Paediatric nursing 10/2008; 20(7):32.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2005, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) highlighted concerns about the management of nasogastric tubes following reports of unnecessary deaths because of misplaced feeding tubes in infants, children and adults. During 2006, I investigated the management of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in children (Clarke and Richardson 2007a, 2007b). This systematic review divided primary papers into three principal themes: enteral feeding via the NGT; confirmation of NGT position and associated incidence of tube placement error; and hydration via the NGT for acute gastroenteritis in children. Findings of the review are summarised here in relation to using the nasogastric tube to administer medication to children with the aim of informing practice and improving safety.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug administration through nasogastric tube (NGT) is a standard practice but the real amount of the delivered drug is unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to determine the losses of various dosage forms administered by different methods through NGT. In vitro model was used. Five different administration methods (A-E) and six dosage forms (simple compressed tablets - T/S; film coated tablets - T/FC; enteric coated tablets - T/EC; capsules with powder filling - C/P; capsules containing extended release pellets - C/ER; capsules containing gastro-resistant pellets - C/GR) were investigated. Measurement was repeated six times for each drug-method combination. The overall losses were determined by gravimetry. In method A partial losses associated with each step of drug administration were also determined. Significant drug losses were measured (4-38%). Only methods A (crushing-beaker-syringe-water-NGT) and B (crushing-water-syringe-NGT) were suitable for administration of all tested dosage forms. Method B proved the most effective for all kinds of tablets and C/GR (p<0.05) and tended to be more effective also for C/ER (p=0.052) compared to method A. C/P showed minimal losses for both tested methods (B and E). Flushing of the drug through NGT causes major losses during drug administration compared to crushing and transfer (p<0.05). All methods for intact pellets (C-E) were found inappropriate for clinical practice due to NGT clogging. Choosing a suitable administration method can significantly affect the amount of drugs delivered through NGT. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    International Journal of Pharmaceutics 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.11.065 · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • Early Human Development 08/2014; 90(10):625-626. DOI:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2014.07.011 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide an overview of the current feeding tubes in use in the pediatric population including feeding tube complications, and specific guidance for patients at the initiation, throughout the use of, and at the discontinuation of tube feeding. A review of the literature was performed using multiple databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library. Key words used included pediatric gastrostomy (G) tubes, nasogastric (NG) tubes, gastrojejunostomy (GJ) tubes, enteral access, and nurse practitioner (NP). Any child who cannot obtain nutrition orally is a candidate for enteral feeding tube access. Tube feeding is the recommended care guideline for children that are undernourished or unable to safely take-in oral nutrition. Tube feeding has been known to improve health-related quality of life. There are a number of different forms of feeding tubes that can be used in children, including NG, orogastric, G, and GJ tubes. Children are being sent home regularly with enteral feeding tube access and NPs will encounter these patients in everyday practice. It is important that NPs know the risks and benefits of tube feeding as well as the types of tubes currently in use and their indications, advantages, disadvantages, and complications.
    11/2013; 25(11):567-77. DOI:10.1002/2327-6924.12075