View
214
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Ineffective Tube Securement Reduces Nutrition and Drug Treatment In Stroke Patients.
AbstractStroke patients with dysphagia often depend on nutrition, hydration and medication via nasogastric (NG)
feeding tubes. Securing tubes using tape was associated with repeated tube loss. We determined cause and
effect by auditing tube placement methods, delays incurred, duration and costs. Of 202 NG tube placements
in 75 patients, 67 placements occurred in 17 patients over a full course of enteral nutrition (EN) and 40 of
these placements were tracked. Tubes were secured by tape in 100%, mittens 31% and special observation
5.4%. However, over an EN course, inadvertent tube loss occurred in 82% of patients and was associated
with age (p = 0.049) and mitten use (p < 0.001): 64% of tubes were lost due to patients and 9% slipped.
Average 'tube life' was 2 days, less than 25% of the EN episode (p < 0.001). While tube placement occurred
within 2.55 hours of request, X-ray confirmation led to an 8-9h delay in feed and drugs per tube placement
and loss of 18.8% of feeding time per EN episode. Delays exceeded the 1h and 4h limits for antibiotics and
other medicines in 20% and 80%, respectively. In the 17 tracked patients, we estimate that 55% of the £5979
direct costs could be saved by nasal bridle use. In conclusion, most tubes studied were lost to inadvertent
tube removal leading to clinically significant delays to nutrition, hydration and drug treatments; this may
impair recovery. Reducing tube loss is likely to reduce patient distress, treatment cost and enhance recovery.
Short titleIneffective tube securement reduces nutrition.
Key wordsDelay, drugs, enteral nutrition, ineffective securement.
Key message1. Most stroke patients require 3 or more tubes per feeding episode due to inadvertent tube removal.
2. Tape and mittens are ineffective means of tube securement.
3. Frequent tube loss and delays to confirming replacement tubes greatly impairs nutritional delivery and
drug treatment.
4. Repeated tube replacement is costly; using nasal bridles could reduce this by 55%.
Conflict of interestNone.
1
23456
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
202122232425
26
2728
29
30
31
32
33
3435
IntroductionIt is estimated that 152,000 strokes occur in the UK every year [Townsend, Wickramasinghe, Bhatnagar et
al, 2012]. Dysphagia occurs in 40-65% following an acute stroke [Martino, Foley and Bhogal et al, 2005;
Falsetti, Acciai, Palilla et al, 2009] but improves significantly during the early days post-stroke; after two
weeks 90% of patients can swallow safely [Martino, Foley and Bhogal et al, 2005]. ‘Those stroke patients
unable to maintain adequate nutrition or fluid, due to dysphagia and/or altered consciousness, should receive
tube feeding via a nasogastric (NG) tube within 24 hours of admission’ [Royal College of Physicians [RCP],
2016].
Unfortunately, inadvertent tube removal or dislodgement is common when using tape securement (up to
63%) [Meer, 1987; Seder, Stockdale and Hale et al, 2010]. Tube loss results in cumulative underfeeding,
dehydration, sub-optimal medication, excessive irradiation from repeated chest x-rays, trauma and anxiety
from repeated tube placement and a significant staff burden and cost. Furthermore, frequent inadvertent tube
removal can lead to an earlier PEG placement; this is associated with a higher mortality [Abuksis, Mor and
Segal et al, 2000; Hamidon, Abdullah and Zawawi et al, 2006].
Standard local securement is to use fabric tape to adhere the tube to the nose with either 'Posey Mittens' or
24hour, 1:1 nursing supervision ('specialling') used only after a patient repeatedly removes their NG tube.
However, Dietetic and Nursing staff perceived these methods to be ineffective. We audited tube placements
to determine the efficacy of securement methods with the reasons for tube removal, methods of confirmation,
delays incurred and treatment cost. This baseline data was used to estimate the potential improvement in
treatment efficacy and cost if in the future we substituted for bridle securement.
3637
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
MethodsOver a 4 month period a Dietitian (SB) recorded patient demography, clinical details and the reason for tube
placement on all patients requiring NG tube placement on the acute Stroke Unit. Patients were referred to
the Dietetic Department by bleeping SB Monday-Friday, 08:00-16:00. For each 'tracked' referral the
procedure time, staff band and method of confirmation, use of H2-blockers or PPI drugs, method of
securement, delays to placement, confirmation, feeding and drugs, duration of tube use and EN episode
were prospectively recorded by SB on a spreadsheet. From these data we costed disposables (tube, X-ray
radiology cost), staff time (salary band mid-point) for tube placement and travel to X-ray confirmation and the
overall cost of maintaining EN. Lastly we estimated costing had we intervened using nasal bridle
securement. To ensure all NG tubes were included in the survey during the 4 month period, a ward sheet
was used to record all NG tubes inserted outside of this funded time. This allowed data to be collected
retrospectively on these ‘out of hours’ (‘untracked’) NG tubes.
Data were collated in Excel. Statistics were analysed in R studio V0.98.977 software. Descriptive statistics
are presented as the number and percentage. Most data was not normally distributed and is therefore shown
as the median [interquartile range, IQR] and differences determined using the Wilcox test. Due to the
hierarchical nature of this data and as there are a different number of repeated measures per case, mixed
effects regression models were used in preference to more common repeated ANOVA models, using patient
identifiers as random effects and all other variables as fixed effects.
6061
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
ResultsFrom 25/1/16 to 16/5/16 202 10FG NG tube placements took place in 75 patients on the Stroke Unit (Table
1). Patients were elderly, with more female patients and all but one had 'stroke' as the primary diagnosis.
Only 20% of NG tube placements were tracked because staff for data collection were only available between
08:00-16:00, Monday to Friday (Table 2). However, there were no demographic or clinical differences
between tracked versus untracked patients. Most tube placements occurred when overall staffing is lower,
between 16:00-08:00 and weekends.
Table 1: Demography and clinical characteristics.
Parameter All Tracked
N (%) or median [IQR]
Placements 202 40
Patients 75 17
Age (y) 79.9 [71.6-85.9] 81.3 [73.9-87.9]
Sex (% male) 31 (41.3%) 7 (41.2%)
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)
15 [9-21] 12.5 [5-21.25]
Primary diagnosis:Stroke 74 (99%) 17 (100%)
Huntington's chorea 1 (1%) 0 (0%)
Secondary diagnosisBiochemical 1 0
Cancer 3 0
Cardiopulmonary dysfunction 13 2
Infection 16 8
Neurological 5 1
Table 2: Reason for tube not being tracked.
Track vs untracked N %
Not tracked: Non-stroke 1 0.5
Staff unavailable: - shortage 6 3
- 16:00-08:00 Mon-Fri 91 45
- weekend 64 31.5
Tracked 40 20
Most NG tubes were placed by band 5 nurses (Band 4: 12%, 5: 78%, 6: 10%). Procedure times were short
(median 5.0 minutes). However, this did not include peri-procedure preparation, securement, disturbances
and requesting of X-rays. Aspiration of gastric fluid with a pH equal to or less than 5.0 was only possible in
33%, though in these patients pH was low (equal to or less than 3.5). Acid suppression was common (H2-
blockers: 7.5%, PPI: 33%). X-ray confirmation occurred in 65%. Although time spent off-ward was short
(0.35h: To and from Radiology=0.12h, in Radiology=0.23h) because of the number of X-ray confirmations
8081
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
patients were frequently without nursing or medical escort.
SecurementIn both the un-tracked and tracked tube placements,
most tubes were secured by tape alone (Table 3,
Figure 1a). In those patients perceived at most risk of
inadvertent tube removal, mittens were fitted to their
hands or, where risk was greatest, both mittens and
‘specialling’ was used. When posey mittens were
required, local protocols were followed appropriately.
Table 3: Securement.
Securement All TrackedN % N %
Tape 128 63.4 27 68Tape+mitt 63 31.2 8 20Tape+mitt+special 11 5.4 5 13
Out of the 202 tube placements, the 124 inadvertent
tube removals by patients were found to be associated
with age and use of mittens as restraints (Table 4). In
addition, increasing age was associated with mitten
use (Table 5).
Figure 1: a. Tape bridges and b. Posey mittens.
a. Tape bridges
b. Posey mittens
9697
9899
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108109
110
111
112
113
114
115116117118119120121
Table 4: Mixed effects models of associations with inadvertent patient tube removal. Model Parameter Odds Ratio Confidence interval p-value
2.5% 97.5%Demography Age (per year) 1.05 1.01 1.08 0.005
Sex (male) 0.84 0.42 1.62 0.59Disease severity score (NIHSS) 1.00 0.97 1.05 0.87
Restraint Restraint_mitt 10.23 4.15 32.09 <0.001Restraint_specialing 2.45 0.31 51.66 0.45
Demography and Restraint
Age (per year) 1.03 1.00 1.07 0.05Sex (male) 0.90 0.44 1.87 0.79Disease severity score (NIHSS) 0.98 0.94 1.02 0.38Restraint_mitt 7.85 3.21 22.45 <0.001Restraint_specialising 3.80 0.45 84.52 0.28
Demography and Restraint (simplified model)
Age (per year) 1.03 0.999 1.06 0.049Restraint_mitt 8.51 3.62 24.99 <0.001
Table 5: Relationship between age and a mitt being used.
Model Odds Ratio Confidence interval p-value2.5% 97.5%
Intercept 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0045Age (per year) 1.2156 1.0785 1.5090 0.0098
While only 12% and 29% required 1 or 2 tube placements, respectively, per EN episode, 59% required 3 or
more; the maximum was 11. Inadvertent tube loss occurred in 73% of placements due to the patient (64%)
and slippage (9%) (Table 6). This is confirmed by the average 'tube life' (2 days) being shorter than the EN
episode (8.5 days, p = <0.001), a ratio of about 4:1. For the 17 patients tracked, the total 'life' of the first tube
was 34.2 days versus 144.5 days for the EN episodes, a deficit of 110.3 days.
122123
124
125
Table 6: Reason for tube placement* and EN cessation.
Event Reason Tube loss
All TrackedN % N %
Tube placement Blocked 4 2.0 1* 2.5
Displaced 2 1.0 1 2.5
Misplaced 2 1.0 2 5New 63 31.2 14 35Patient 124 61.4 21* 52.5Slipped 7 3.5 1 2.5
Tube loss Blocked - - 1 2.5Died: Tube in situ - - 1 2.5Discharged: Oral diet - - 3 7.5Patient removed - - 26 65Removed: Clinical reason - - 5 12.5
Slipped - - 4 10EN cessation Discharged - - 10 58.8
Oral nutrition - - 3 17.6Palliative - - 3 17.6PEG/J or jejunostomy - - 1 5.9Removed: Not needed - - 0 0
*In tracked patients, 3 had lost tubes prior to inclusion: 1 blocked, 2 inadvertent patient removals.126
DelaysEach tube loss and subsequent placement resulted in treatment delays (Table 7). While placement is done
relatively rapidly, the delay to confirm position when X-ray was required explains most of the delay to feed or
'other' drugs given. The short median delay to antibiotic administration was because the dose was timed later
in the day, by which time tube position was confirmed, or it was given IV. Nevertheless 20% of placements
incurred delays exceeding the 1h Pharmacy-target for optimal antibiotic treatment and 10% of placements
incurred delays of 10-50h. For other drugs, 80% of placements incurred delays that exceeded the 4h target
(Figure 2).
Table 7: Delayed actions and treatments (median [IQR]).
Delayed action Median [IQR]Placement 2.55 [0.9-24]Confirmation 7.83 [4.5-12]Feeding 9.00 [4.9-23.62]Antibiotic 0 [0-0]Other drugs 8.62 [3.5-24]
Figure 2: Delays to antibiotics and other drugs by centile.
CostsTotal cost of tube placement was significant because of the frequent use of X-ray (£25) (Table 8). However,
overall the cost per day and per episode were considerably higher when using mittens and 'specialling'. Data
was not normally distributed but outlying 'expensive patients' make the average cost per EN episode more
127128129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
138139140141
142
143
representative; this was £351.7 for a mean of 8.5d. For the 17 patients tracked, EN cost was £5979. This
does not include all costs, for example time organising extra treatments (mittens, 'specialling') or, more
importantly, the effects of losing 8-9h of drug and nutritional treatment 4 times per 8.5d of an EN episode.
Table 8: Treatment costs.
Category Item Median [IQR]Procedure Disposables 37.60 [12.6-37.6]
Staff 11.50 [10.2-15.5]Total 49.16 [23.0-53.1]
Overall Total per tube day* 48.25 [11.5-331.3]Total per EN episode* ^^ 159 [92.03-291.8]
*Including mitts (£44 per pair) and specialling (£14.58 per h). ^^Because 3 patients removed a tube prior to the audit, this figure is an underestimate.
As a theoretical comparison, the same group was costed as if they had a nasal bridle fitted that had been
80% effective in preventing inadvertent tube loss (patient, slippage), where 90% of bridles are successfully
placed and therefore one patient, instead of 5, required 'specialling'. This would cost £2712 for the 17
patients, saving 55% of the current cost.
144
145
146
147
148149150151
152
153
154
Discussion Of 202 NG tube placements in 75 patients, 40 were tracked in 17 patients Monday to Friday 08:00-16:00.
Tracked and non-tracked patients were similar for demography and diagnoses, therefore the findings in
tracked patients may be generalisable to this entire stroke sample. Most tubes were placed by band 5 nurses
and all were initially secured with tape. Mittens and special observation were used in 31.2% and 5.4% of the
overall group, respectively, when NG tubes had been repeatedly removed. Local protocols were followed
when mittens were required in these circumstances. Most NG tubes are removed inadvertently (tracked:
64%), with an average ‘tube life’ of 2 days, less than 25% of the EN episode. This is similar to other studies,
where inadvertent patient removal or slippage of NG tubes was found to be up to 63% [Meer, 1987; Seder,
Stockdale and Hale et al, 2010; Gunn, Early and Zenati et al, 2009; Taylor et al, 2015]. Among the 17
tracked patients, 59% required 3 or more tube placements during their EN episode. An additional 9% of
tracked tubes slipped out, so overall 73% of tubes were lost because securement was inadequate. Similarly,
only 27% of all tube removals were planned (eating, PEG, clinical removal), the majority of tube losses being
potentially preventable with better securement. In a hospital-wide survey most patients removed at least 1
tube (1 tube: 61%, 2: 40%, more than 2: 28%) and if a patient removed 1 tube, 66% removed a 2nd; if a
patient removed a 2nd tube, 70% would eventually remove 3 or more tubes [Taylor et al, 2015].
Of the tracked NG placements, only 32.5% had a successful aspiration and pH confirmation of gastric
position. The reason for failure of pH confirmation was not recorded but would be a combination of inability to
obtain ‘gastric fluid’ or pH equal to or more than 5.0, the Hospital Trust (NBT) threshold for gastric
confirmation; the latter may have been influenced by a high incidence of acid suppression (H-2 blocker:
7.5%, PPI: 32.5%) [Taylor, Allan and McWilliam et al, 2014]. However, better dissemination of the standard
operating procedure to change patient and/ or tube position or use a 'safe swallow' of acidic orange juice to
aspirate gastric acid may improve pH confirmation rates. One tube was removed by the patient prior to
position confirmation and the remaining 65% required the patient to go off-ward for X-ray confirmation.
Previous study found failure to obtain gastric aspirate in only 17% [Taylor, Allan and McWilliam et al, 2014].
However, this study used electromagnetically-guided tube placement to make multiple aspiration attempts at
different points within the stomach; failure to obtain an aspirate of less than or equal to 5.0 occurred 44% and
was associated with PPI-use. Similarly, in the hospital-wide survey pH confirmation was only successful in
45%, requiring X-ray in 51% and EM-guidance in 4% [Taylor et al, 2015]. The high percentage of inadvertent
tube removals and subsequent failure of aspirates and pH confirmation results in excessive irradiation from
repeated chest X-rays.
Request to tube placement was quick (2.55 hours), but confirmation took almost 8 hours, delaying feed and
drugs by 8-9 hours per tube placement. This means the median loss of feed or medication time per 8.5 days
EN episode is 38 hours, 18.8% of potential feeding time. 80% of placements delayed medicines by more
than 4 hours and for 20% delayed antibiotics by more than 1 hour, classed by Pharmacy as critical time
thresholds. Delays to antibiotics would have been worse had doses not been given IV or late in the day, after
which time tube placement had occurred. In addition, there would be risk from cumulative under-nutrition and
dehydration. Taken together nutritional and drug treatment were impaired to a clinically significant degree.
Furthermore, the majority of untracked tubes were inserted out of usual working hours or on weekends,
times when expert staff may not be available and therefore risk increased [NPSA, 2011]. Anecdotally,
155156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
nursing staff cite limited porters and access to Radiology out of hours as the main delay to X-ray so the
current study may have underestimated the delay to confirmation and its consequences.
The identified delays to nutrition and hydration occur early post-acute stroke. This is when dysphagia most
commonly necessitates NG tube placement to ensure enteral access and is most critical to recovery. A
randomized controlled trial of 146 patients with acute stroke and dysphagia found that those with better
nutritional status and treated using early and sufficient nutrition had improved short term prognosis of acute
stroke [Zheng, Zhu and Liang et al, 2015]. Furthermore, intensive nutritional supplementation and early
energy intake following acute stroke were associated with recovery of activities of daily living and functional
motor scores [Nii, Maeda and Wakabayashi et al, 2016; Rabadi et al, 2008]. It is important to note that nurse
focus groups report the greatest problem during EN is patient distress to tube insertion, therefore, reducing
the need for NG tube reinsertions has particular clinical value.
In terms of securement, a patient using mittens was more than 8 times more likely to remove a tube, even
after taking age into account. This probably reflects that mittens had been used with patients likely to remove
their tube and that they were largely ineffective at preventing subsequent removal.
Age was also associated, though less strongly, with inadvertent tube removal. Increasing age is associated
with the increased use of mittens, (OR = 1.2, 95% CI (1.08,1.51), p=0.0098). Again, age may be a surrogate
for causal factors such as confusion. Some staff perceive that restraint using posey mittens is less distressful
than a nasal bridle, but this hasn't been holistically tested [RCN, 2016]; and the alternative concern is that
mittens restrict movement and subsequent rehabilitation of stroke patients. Mittens are considered a
‘restraint’; a nasal bridle is securement [NNNG, 2017].
Nasal bridle placement has been shown to minimise dislodgment and removal of NG tubes [Seder et al,
2010], thereby enabling the maximum amount of time for patients to receive nutrition, fluids and medications.
After appropriate training, nasal bridles are easy and quick to place (84.8% success, 4 failed due to blocked
nose, 1 to poor technique) [Power, Smyth and Duggan et al, 2010] and are cost effective [Gunn, Early and
Zenati et al, 2008; Power, Smyth and Duggan et al, 2010]. Many centres only use a bridle when 1 or more
tubes have been inadvertently lost to patient removal or slippage. In the current sample, a threshold of 1 or 2
tube losses would result in 88% or 59% of patients, respectively, suffering 1 or more tube placements before
being considered for bridle securement. Conversely, if all 17 patients had bridles fitted, 12% would have
suffered an unnecessary procedure but 88% would have fewer or no extra NG tube placements, less
irradiation and better nutrition and drug delivery; there would also be reduced staff burden and treatment
cost.
In an RCT, compared to unbridled tubes, fewer bridled tubes were unintentionally dislodged (18% vs. 63%,
p<0.001) [Seder, Stockdale, and Hale et al, 2010] and the percentage of goal calories delivered was higher
(median 78% vs. 62%, p = 0.016). Again, compared to tape, nasal bridles reduced tube removal from 36% to
10%, a rate per 100 tube fed days of 6.4 to 1.6 [Gunn, Early and Zenati et al, 2009]. In one study, NG tubes
were displaced in 58% of dysphagic stroke patients [Anderson, O'connor and Mayer et al, 2004].
Displacement within or after 28 days was treated with a nasal bridle or PEG. The nasal bridle was used for a
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
median of 15 days and median prescribed feed increased from 0% to 100% post-bridle. Furthermore, in 104
acute stroke patients fed by NG tubes in 3 UK stroke units, the NG tube was secured using either a nasal
bridle (n= 51) or a conventional adhesive dressing (n= 53) [Beavan, Convoy and Harwood et al, 2010]. Over
14 days, patients randomised to nasal bridle securement received 17% more prescribed feed and fluid
volume (~5.5L), required fewer NG tube insertions (median 1 vs 4) and had fewer electrolyte abnormalities
than controls. Similarly, feed delivery improved from 20% of the goal pre-bridle, to 98% post-bridle; this
obviated the need for PEG placement and may thereby reduce PEG-associated mortality [Donaldson, Earley
and Sheilds, 2007]. Meta-analysis confirms reduced tube dislodgement with bridle use compared to adhesive
tape [Bechtold et al, 2014]. However, there is an increase in skin complications (erythema to frank
ulcerations) (13% vs 3%) and sinusitis (0% vs 5%). Risk may be reduced by bridling with surgical tape not
tubing, not over-tightening and removing once clinically indicated.
Conclusions from this study are limited by the small number of patients 'tracked' for their EN episode (n=17)
and require confirmation in larger studies. However, 'tracked' patients appear representative of whole sample
in terms of demography and disease pattern and have a similar pattern of tube loss, comparable to previous
studies.
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
Conclusion and implications for practiceThis study details the 73% rate of inadvertent tube loss, when secured with tape (with or without mittens and
specialling) in stroke patients. Furthermore, those who remove one NG tube are more likely to remove two or
more. Repeated NG tube loss and replacement increase risk from tube misplacement, irradiation from x-rays,
cost and delays to nutrition, fluid and medications; overall these are likely to increase patient distress and
impair clinical recovery. Mittens and 1:1 specialling did not prevent NG tube removal but greatly increased
costs. Nasal bridles may be a safe and effective alternative that could improve patient recovery and
experience while halving costs. Implementation and audit of the cost-effectiveness of bridle use is planned. If
found to be beneficial, adequate training plans would need to be implemented to ensure appropriate
decisions are made regarding bridle use and put care guidelines in place, particularly regarding the
prevention of skin complications and sinusitis.
255256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266267268269270271
ReferencesAbuksis, G., Mor, M., Segal, N., Shemesh, I., Plout, S., Sulkes, J., Fraser, G.M., and Niv, Y. (2000)
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: high mortality rates in hospitalized patients. The American Journal of
Gastroenterology. Vol 95 pp. 128-132
Anderson, M.R., O'Connor, M., Mayer, P., O'Mahony, D., Woodward, J., and Kane, K (2004) The nasal loop
provides an alternative to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in high-risk dysphagic stroke patients.
Clinical Nutrition. Vol 23 pp. 501-506.
Beavan, J., Conroy, S.P., Harwood, R., Gladman, J.R., Leonardi- Bee, J., Sach, T., Bowling T., Sunman, W.,
and Gaynor, C. (2010) Does looped nasogastric tube feeding improve nutritional delivery for patients with
dysphagia after acute stroke? A randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing. Pp. 1-7
Bechtold ML, Nguyen DL, Palmer LB, Kiraly LN, Martindale RG, McClave SA. Nasal Bridles for Securing
Nasoenteric Tubes: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2014; 29: 667-71.
Donaldson, E., Earley, T., and Sheilds, P.L. (2007) The Nasal Bridle - Its Place Within An Integrated Nutrition
Service: A Prospective Audit Of One Year’s Data. Gut. Vol 56:A137.
Falsetti, P., Acciai, C., Palilla, R., Bosi, M., Carpinteri, F., Zingarelli, A., Pedace, C., and Lenzi, L. (2009)
Oropharyngeal dysphagia after stroke: incidence, diagnosis, and clinical predictors in patients admitted to a
neurorehabilitation unit. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. Vol18 (5) pp. 329–335
Gunn, S.R., Early, B.J., Zenati, M.S., and Ochoa, J.B. (2009) Use of a nasal bridle prevents accidental
nasoenteral feeding tube removal. Journal of Parenteral and EnteraI Nutrition. Vol 33 pp. 50-54
Hamidon, B.B., Abdullah, S.A., Zawawi, M.F., Sukumar, N., Aminuddin, A., and Raymond, A. (2006) A
prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients
with acute dysphagic stroke. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Vol 61 (1) pp. 59- 66
Martino, R., Foley, N., Bhogal, S., Diamant, N., Speechley, M., and Teasell, R. (2005) Dysphagia after
stroke: incidence, diagnosis, and pulmonary complications. Stroke. Vol 36 (12) pp. 2756–2763
Meer, J.S. (1987) Inadvertent dislodgement of nasoenteral feeding tubes: incidence and prevention. Journal
of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Vol 11(2) pp.187–9.
NICE Clinical Guidelines (2008). Stroke and transient ischaemic attack in over 16s: diagnosis and initial
management. NICE guidelines [CG68]
NNNG (National Nurses Nutrition Group. Good Practice Guideline – Safe Insertion of a Retaining Device for Nasogastric
(NG) and Nasojejunal (NJ) Feeding Tubes (in Adults). 2017.
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311312
313
Nii, M., Maeda, K., Wakabayashi, H., Nishioka, S., Tanaka, A. (2016) Nutritional improvement and energy
intake are associated with functional recovery in patients after cerebrovascular disorders. Journal of Stroke
and Cerebrovascular Diseases. Vol 25 (1) pp. 57-62
NPSA. Patient Safety Alert NPSA/2011/PSA002: Reducing the harm caused by misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes in adults, children and infants. Supporting Information. March 2011.
Power, S., Smyth, N., Duggan, S., Roddy, M., and Feehan, S. (2010) The nasal bridle: A useful approach to
prevent the dislodgement of feeding tubes. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN. Vol 5 (2) pp. e73-e76
Royal College of Physicians. In: National clinical guideline for stroke. 4.7 Hydration and Nutrition. Prepared
by the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. Fifth Edition 2016.
Seder, C., Stockdale, W., Hale, l., and Jjnczyk, R.J. (2010) Nasal bridling decreases feeding tube
dislodgement and may increase caloric intake in the surgical intensive care unit: A randomized controlled
trial. Critical Care Medicine. Vol 38 (3) pp. 797-801
Taylor, S.J., Allan, K., McWilliam, H., Manara, A., Brown, J., Toher, D., and Rayner, W (2014) Confirming
nasogastric tube position: Electromagnetic tracking versus pH or X-ray and tube radio-opacity. British
Journal of Nursing. Vol 23 pp. 354-8.
Taylor S.J., McWilliam H., Allan K., Hocking P. The efficacy of feeding tubes: confirmation and loss. British Journal of Nursing. 2015;24(7):371-2, 374-5. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2015.24.7.371.
Townsend, N., Wickramasinghe, K., Bhatnagar, P., Smolina, K., Nichols, M., Leal, J., Luengo-Fernandez, R.,
and Rayner, M. (2012) British Heart Foundation, Coronary Heart Disease statistics 2012 Edition. [online]
Available from https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/coronary-heart-disease-statistics-2012.
[Accessed: 15th August 2016]
Zheng, T., Zhu, X., Liang, H., Huang, H., Yang, J., and Wang, S. (2015) Impact of early enteral nutrition on
short term prognosis after acute stroke. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. Vol 22 (9) pp. 1473-1476.
314
315
316
317
318319320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
Questions for reflection1. Inadvertent tube removal is the largest cause of tube loss among mixed patient populations. Why might
patients suffering acute stroke be more likely to remove a feeding tube?
2. Most stroke patients inadvertently remove multiple tubes despite tape and mittens and each blind tube
placement has a 0.5% risk of causing pneumothorax or pneumonia or 20% risk of leaving tube in the
oesophagus. Consider the possible benefits versus harms of different methods of securement.
3. Similar to findings in other studies, most patients required >3 tube placements and missed 20% of their
feed time and multiple medications. Consider what effects these factors may have on patient comfort,
distress and clinical outcome.
4. Consider what change(s) in nursing practice might impact inadvertent tube loss and how this could affect
patient comfort, clinical outcome and treatment cost.
5. CPD reflective questions6. ■■ This article describes several methods of reducing the risk of stroke patients
inadvertently removing their nasogastric7. (NG) feeding tubes. Consider the reasons why patients who have had an acute stroke
would need an NG tube, why8. they might be likely to dislodge them, and the rationale behind the different securement
methods used9. ■■ What are the clinical issues involved in placement of enteral feeding tubes?10. ■■ From what little research there is, the part of enteral feeding that patients find
most distressing appears to be tube11. placement. Reflecting on your experience with enteral feeding, or with distressed
patients, what can nurses and other12. health professionals do to reduce patient distress from (repeated) tube placement?
345346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356357358359360361362363364365366367368
Recommended