Feasibility of Nasogastric Tube Insertion in Conscious Patients: Conventional Method vs. SORT Method.
Emergency Ward
NGT
Pain
Patient Satisfaction
Journal
Anesthesiology and pain medicine
ISSN: 2228-7523
Titre abrégé: Anesth Pain Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101585412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
15
04
2020
revised:
16
05
2020
accepted:
18
05
2020
entrez:
18
9
2020
pubmed:
19
9
2020
medline:
19
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is one of the most common procedures in the Emergency Department (EDs). This study aimed to evaluate the ease of NGT installation using the conventional method and the SORT method. We conducted a randomized clinical trial in a university hospital on 200 patients who required NGT insertion during Mar-Sep, 2019. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 100 patients each, receiving the SORT and conventional methods. Finally, the feasibility of NGT insertion was examined in the two groups using the frequency of NGT insertion attempts, pain during insertion (based on the VAS score of 1 - 10), patient satisfaction with the procedure (rating of 1 - 10), and incidence of complications. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, body mass index, sex, and history of NGT use. However, the mean patient satisfaction score was higher (P < 0.05), whereas the mean pain score was lower (P < 0.05) in the group receiving the conventional method compared to the other group. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in complications (P > 0.05). The study showed that using the conventional method in comparison with the SORT method was significantly better for NGT insertion in conscious patients in terms of patient satisfaction and pain relief. Therefore, it is recommended not to use the SORT method in conscious patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is one of the most common procedures in the Emergency Department (EDs).
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the ease of NGT installation using the conventional method and the SORT method.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a randomized clinical trial in a university hospital on 200 patients who required NGT insertion during Mar-Sep, 2019. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 100 patients each, receiving the SORT and conventional methods. Finally, the feasibility of NGT insertion was examined in the two groups using the frequency of NGT insertion attempts, pain during insertion (based on the VAS score of 1 - 10), patient satisfaction with the procedure (rating of 1 - 10), and incidence of complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, body mass index, sex, and history of NGT use. However, the mean patient satisfaction score was higher (P < 0.05), whereas the mean pain score was lower (P < 0.05) in the group receiving the conventional method compared to the other group. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in complications (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study showed that using the conventional method in comparison with the SORT method was significantly better for NGT insertion in conscious patients in terms of patient satisfaction and pain relief. Therefore, it is recommended not to use the SORT method in conscious patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32944564
doi: 10.5812/aapm.103747
pmc: PMC7472647
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e103747Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020, Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Surg. 2005 Jun;92(6):673-80
pubmed: 15912492
Anaesthesia. 2016 Mar;71(3):351
pubmed: 26864012
J Clin Nurs. 2016 Nov;25(21-22):3326-3332
pubmed: 27218418
Emerg Radiol. 2007 Jan;13(4):205-7
pubmed: 17109125
Indian J Surg. 2012 Oct;74(5):376-80
pubmed: 24082589
Anesth Analg. 2009 Sep;109(3):832-5
pubmed: 19690254
Indian J Anaesth. 2014 Nov-Dec;58(6):714-8
pubmed: 25624535
Yonsei Med J. 2002 Aug;43(4):451-6
pubmed: 12205733
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010 Oct;40(4):613-20
pubmed: 20678892
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD004929
pubmed: 17636780
BMC Gastroenterol. 2012 Aug 01;12:99
pubmed: 22853453
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 May;29(4):386-90
pubmed: 20825806
Am Surg. 1988 Nov;54(11):672-5
pubmed: 3190004
Ann Saudi Med. 2013 Sep-Oct;33(5):476-81
pubmed: 24188942
Can J Surg. 1992 Dec;35(6):629-32
pubmed: 1458389
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016 Aug;20(8):492-3
pubmed: 27630467