The Hidden Burden of Community Enteral Feeding on the Emergency Department.
blocked tube
costs
dislodge
enteral tube
gastrostomy
late complications
Journal
JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition
ISSN: 1941-2444
Titre abrégé: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7804134
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
revised:
04
09
2020
received:
23
02
2020
accepted:
13
09
2020
pubmed:
20
9
2020
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
19
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Enteral feeding tubes are associated with their most serious complications in the days and weeks after insertion, but there are limited published data in the literature on late complications and the implications for the healthcare service. This is a retrospective observational study of attendances to a UK hospital emergency department (ED), with enteral tube complications as the primary reason for attendance. Over 24 months, 139 attendances were recorded. Dislodged tubes and blocked tubes accounted for the majority of complications and subsequent admissions, with a mixture of enteral tube types being associated with both. Thirty-five percent of patients were admitted, and the average healthcare cost per attendance was $1071. Enteral tube complications can place a hidden burden on the patient, the ED, and healthcare costs. More work on education and supporting caregivers to resolve problems themselves could reduce the burden on busy EDs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Enteral feeding tubes are associated with their most serious complications in the days and weeks after insertion, but there are limited published data in the literature on late complications and the implications for the healthcare service.
METHODS
This is a retrospective observational study of attendances to a UK hospital emergency department (ED), with enteral tube complications as the primary reason for attendance.
RESULTS
Over 24 months, 139 attendances were recorded. Dislodged tubes and blocked tubes accounted for the majority of complications and subsequent admissions, with a mixture of enteral tube types being associated with both. Thirty-five percent of patients were admitted, and the average healthcare cost per attendance was $1071.
CONCLUSION
Enteral tube complications can place a hidden burden on the patient, the ED, and healthcare costs. More work on education and supporting caregivers to resolve problems themselves could reduce the burden on busy EDs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1347-1351Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.
Références
Ponsky JL. The development of PEG: how it was. J. Interv. Gastroenterol 2011;1(2):88-89.
Siau K, Troth T, Gibson E, et al. How long do percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tubes last? A retrospective analysis. Postgrad. Med. J. 2018;94(1114):469-474.
Anderson A, Di Leo M, Barzaghi F, et al. Complications and early mortality in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placements in Lombardy: a multi centre prospective cohort study. Dig. Liver. Dis. 2019:51(10):1380-1387.
Jafari A, Weismuller TJ, Tonguc T, et al. Complications after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement- a retrospective analysis. Zentralbl. Chir. 2016;141(4):442-445.
Bamakhrama K, Oldham TA, Alassaf O. Buried bumper syndrome presenting with bleeding. BMJ Case. Rep. 2018;11(1):e225876.
Nunes G, Oliveiras G, Cortez-Pinto J, et al. Gastrocolocutaenous fistula: an undetected complication of colon transfixation during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Turk. J. Gastroenterol. 2019;30(8):761-763
Mueller-Gerbes D, Hartmann B, Lima JP, et al. Comparison of removal techniques in the management of buried bumper syndrome: a retrospective cohort study of 82 patients. Endosc. Int. Open. 2017;5(7):E603-E607.
Clarke E, Pitts N, Latchford A, Lewis S. A large prospective audit of morbidity and mortality associated with feeding gastrostomies in the community. Clin. Nutr. 2017;36(2):485-490.
Rosenberger LH, Newhook T, Schirmer B, Sawyer RG. Late accidental dislodgement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube: an underestimated burden on patients and the health care system. Surg. Endosco. 2011;25(10):3307-3311.
Strijbos D, Keszthelyi D, Bogie RMM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes and complications of percutaneous endoscopic versus radiologic gastrostomy for enteral feeding. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2018;52(9):753-764.
Löser C, Aschl G, Hébuterne X, et al. ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition - Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin. Nutr. 2005;24(5):848-861.
Hazzard E, Gulliver S, Walton K, et al. The patient experience of having a feeding tube during treatment for head and neck cancer: a systematic literature review. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2019;33:66-85.
Green SM, Townsend K, Jarrett N, et al. People with enteral tubes ad their carer's views of living with a tube and managing associated problems: a qualitative interview study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2019;28(19-20):3710-3720.
Jordan S, Philpin S, Warring J et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies: the burden of treatment from a patient perspective. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006;56(3):270-281.
Siau K, Green JT, Hawkes ND, et al. Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019;10(2):93-106.