Survey of Oral Feeding Practices Amongst Health Care Professionals for Infants Receiving Nasal Continuous-Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) and High Flow Nasal Canula (HFNC) Respiratory Support in the United Kingdom (UK).
{"title":"Survey of Oral Feeding Practices Amongst Health Care Professionals for Infants Receiving Nasal Continuous-Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) and High Flow Nasal Canula (HFNC) Respiratory Support in the United Kingdom (UK).","authors":"Rebecca Murphy, Nicholas Drey, Madeline Cruice","doi":"10.1007/s00455-026-10984-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is international uncertainty and little guidance regarding oral feeding on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) respiratory support. The aim of this study is to investigate current practice in the UK when deciding to offer oral feeds to infants on nCPAP/HFNC. A novel survey was designed and conducted using Qualtrics. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants in speech and language therapy, medicine and nursing via professional associations. Participants completed the 41-item survey which explored oral feeding practices for infants on nCPAP/HFNC. The survey included closed-choice and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics using SPSS, were used to analyse quantitative findings. A frequency count and thematic analysis were used to describe qualitative data. 103 responses were analysed. Regarding frequency of oral feeding on nCPAP, most respondents (45%) never fed; 30% rarely fed; 21% sometimes fed; 3% often fed, and 1% always fed (n = 73). Regarding HFNC, most respondents (48%) sometimes fed; 23% often fed; 1% always fed and 28% never or rarely fed (n = 69). 58% of respondents followed no guidelines when making decisions regarding oral feeding on nCPAP/HFNC, and 42% did or had guidelines in development (n = 83). Qualitative analysis identified the importance of the multidisciplinary team (MDT), infant readiness and the evidence-base when orally feeding an infant on nCPAP/HFNC. A continuum of conflict was acknowledged ranging from agreement amongst the MDT to disagreement within and between disciplines. More clinicians feed on HFNC than on nCPAP and there is little in the way of guidelines to support decision-making leading to variation in practice. Further research is recommended, including empirical studies using instrumental assessment of swallow safety, to guide clinicians with their decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":11508,"journal":{"name":"Dysphagia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dysphagia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-026-10984-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
There is international uncertainty and little guidance regarding oral feeding on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) respiratory support. The aim of this study is to investigate current practice in the UK when deciding to offer oral feeds to infants on nCPAP/HFNC. A novel survey was designed and conducted using Qualtrics. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants in speech and language therapy, medicine and nursing via professional associations. Participants completed the 41-item survey which explored oral feeding practices for infants on nCPAP/HFNC. The survey included closed-choice and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics using SPSS, were used to analyse quantitative findings. A frequency count and thematic analysis were used to describe qualitative data. 103 responses were analysed. Regarding frequency of oral feeding on nCPAP, most respondents (45%) never fed; 30% rarely fed; 21% sometimes fed; 3% often fed, and 1% always fed (n = 73). Regarding HFNC, most respondents (48%) sometimes fed; 23% often fed; 1% always fed and 28% never or rarely fed (n = 69). 58% of respondents followed no guidelines when making decisions regarding oral feeding on nCPAP/HFNC, and 42% did or had guidelines in development (n = 83). Qualitative analysis identified the importance of the multidisciplinary team (MDT), infant readiness and the evidence-base when orally feeding an infant on nCPAP/HFNC. A continuum of conflict was acknowledged ranging from agreement amongst the MDT to disagreement within and between disciplines. More clinicians feed on HFNC than on nCPAP and there is little in the way of guidelines to support decision-making leading to variation in practice. Further research is recommended, including empirical studies using instrumental assessment of swallow safety, to guide clinicians with their decision-making.
期刊介绍:
Dysphagia aims to serve as a voice for the benefit of the patient. The journal is devoted exclusively to swallowing and its disorders. The purpose of the journal is to provide a source of information to the flourishing dysphagia community. Over the past years, the field of dysphagia has grown rapidly, and the community of dysphagia researchers have galvanized with ambition to represent dysphagia patients. In addition to covering a myriad of disciplines in medicine and speech pathology, the following topics are also covered, but are not limited to: bio-engineering, deglutition, esophageal motility, immunology, and neuro-gastroenterology. The journal aims to foster a growing need for further dysphagia investigation, to disseminate knowledge through research, and to stimulate communication among interested professionals. The journal publishes original papers, technical and instrumental notes, letters to the editor, and review articles.