饲管安全:国家指导忽略了“房间里的大象”。

IF 0.8 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Stephen J Taylor
{"title":"饲管安全:国家指导忽略了“房间里的大象”。","authors":"Stephen J Taylor","doi":"10.1177/09246479241295560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundNational guidance attempts to prevent tubes remaining undetected and being used when misplaced in the respiratory tract. The 'elephant in the room' is that this guidance detects misplacement too late to prevent most pneumothoraces and pneumonias.ObjectiveReview risks of undetected and detected respiratory or oesophageal tube misplacements and how 'in-procedure' methods of determining tube position might reduce them.MethodsTube misplacement risk was compared for different methods of checking tube position. Data were obtained from UK NHS England (NHSE), a literature search between 1986 and 12/07/2024 using CINAHL, Embase, Medline and Emcare and from a local database.ResultsPost-procedure pH or X-ray checks on tube position have failed to prevent a rising incidence of undetected respiratory misplacements (NEVER events) (0.013%). Worse, current checks cannot prevent the 0.52% of placements that lead to in-procedure pneumothorax, constituting 97% of lung complications. In addition, pH may fail to prevent aspiration risk from oesophageal misplacement. Conversely, pneumothorax-risk would be reduced to 0.021% by using a supplementary mid-procedure CO<sub>2</sub> check or to 0.005% with expert guided tube placement (both <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Guided tube placement can additionally pre-empt oesophageal-related complications, but its safety is expert-dependent, with higher rates of undetected misplacement and pneumothorax in low-use Cortrak centres (0.10%) than expert centres (0%, <i>p</i> < 0.009).ConclusionThe high health burden from feeding tube-related complications could be almost eliminated if regulatory authorities recommended a mid-procedure CO<sub>2</sub> check for respiratory placement or expert guided tube placement, alongside mandates for the necessary training.</p>","PeriodicalId":45237,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE","volume":" ","pages":"85-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feeding tube safety: National guidance ignores the 'elephant in the room'.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen J Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09246479241295560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundNational guidance attempts to prevent tubes remaining undetected and being used when misplaced in the respiratory tract. The 'elephant in the room' is that this guidance detects misplacement too late to prevent most pneumothoraces and pneumonias.ObjectiveReview risks of undetected and detected respiratory or oesophageal tube misplacements and how 'in-procedure' methods of determining tube position might reduce them.MethodsTube misplacement risk was compared for different methods of checking tube position. Data were obtained from UK NHS England (NHSE), a literature search between 1986 and 12/07/2024 using CINAHL, Embase, Medline and Emcare and from a local database.ResultsPost-procedure pH or X-ray checks on tube position have failed to prevent a rising incidence of undetected respiratory misplacements (NEVER events) (0.013%). Worse, current checks cannot prevent the 0.52% of placements that lead to in-procedure pneumothorax, constituting 97% of lung complications. In addition, pH may fail to prevent aspiration risk from oesophageal misplacement. Conversely, pneumothorax-risk would be reduced to 0.021% by using a supplementary mid-procedure CO<sub>2</sub> check or to 0.005% with expert guided tube placement (both <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Guided tube placement can additionally pre-empt oesophageal-related complications, but its safety is expert-dependent, with higher rates of undetected misplacement and pneumothorax in low-use Cortrak centres (0.10%) than expert centres (0%, <i>p</i> < 0.009).ConclusionThe high health burden from feeding tube-related complications could be almost eliminated if regulatory authorities recommended a mid-procedure CO<sub>2</sub> check for respiratory placement or expert guided tube placement, alongside mandates for the necessary training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"85-97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09246479241295560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09246479241295560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:国家指南试图防止导管在呼吸道错位时未被发现并被使用。“房间里的大象”是,这种指导发现错位太晚,无法预防大多数气胸和肺炎。目的:回顾未被发现和被发现的呼吸管或食管管错位的风险,以及如何“术中”确定管位置的方法来降低这种风险。方法:比较不同管位检查方法的管位错位风险。数据来自英国NHS英格兰(NHSE),使用CINAHL, Embase, Medline和Emcare以及当地数据库检索1986年至2024年12月7日之间的文献。结果:术后pH值或x线检查插管位置未能阻止未被发现的呼吸错位发生率上升(NEVER事件)(0.013%)。更糟糕的是,目前的检查无法预防0.52%的放置导致术中气胸,占肺部并发症的97%。此外,pH值可能无法防止食道错位引起的误吸风险。相反,如果采用补充的术中CO2检查,气胸风险将降至0.021%,如果采用专家引导的置管,气胸风险将降至0.005% (p < 0.0001)。引导置管还可以预防食管相关并发症,但其安全性取决于专家,低使用率的Cortrak中心未被发现的置管错位和气胸发生率(0.10%)高于专家中心(0%,p < 0.009)。结论:如果监管机构建议在呼吸放置或专家指导下放置管时进行中期CO2检查,并要求进行必要的培训,则喂食管相关并发症的高健康负担几乎可以消除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feeding tube safety: National guidance ignores the 'elephant in the room'.

BackgroundNational guidance attempts to prevent tubes remaining undetected and being used when misplaced in the respiratory tract. The 'elephant in the room' is that this guidance detects misplacement too late to prevent most pneumothoraces and pneumonias.ObjectiveReview risks of undetected and detected respiratory or oesophageal tube misplacements and how 'in-procedure' methods of determining tube position might reduce them.MethodsTube misplacement risk was compared for different methods of checking tube position. Data were obtained from UK NHS England (NHSE), a literature search between 1986 and 12/07/2024 using CINAHL, Embase, Medline and Emcare and from a local database.ResultsPost-procedure pH or X-ray checks on tube position have failed to prevent a rising incidence of undetected respiratory misplacements (NEVER events) (0.013%). Worse, current checks cannot prevent the 0.52% of placements that lead to in-procedure pneumothorax, constituting 97% of lung complications. In addition, pH may fail to prevent aspiration risk from oesophageal misplacement. Conversely, pneumothorax-risk would be reduced to 0.021% by using a supplementary mid-procedure CO2 check or to 0.005% with expert guided tube placement (both p < 0.0001). Guided tube placement can additionally pre-empt oesophageal-related complications, but its safety is expert-dependent, with higher rates of undetected misplacement and pneumothorax in low-use Cortrak centres (0.10%) than expert centres (0%, p < 0.009).ConclusionThe high health burden from feeding tube-related complications could be almost eliminated if regulatory authorities recommended a mid-procedure CO2 check for respiratory placement or expert guided tube placement, alongside mandates for the necessary training.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RISK & SAFETY IN MEDICINE PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
102
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine is concerned with rendering the practice of medicine as safe as it can be; that involves promoting the highest possible quality of care, but also examining how those risks which are inevitable can be contained and managed. This is not exclusively a drugs journal. Recently it was decided to include in the subtitle of the journal three items to better indicate the scope of the journal, i.e. patient safety, pharmacovigilance and liability and the Editorial Board was adjusted accordingly. For each of these sections an Associate Editor was invited. We especially want to emphasize patient safety.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信