肠内喂养管放置和胃残余抽吸实践的横断面调查:需要一个循证临床实践指南。

Sheeja Perumbil Pathrose, Kaye Spence, Christine Taylor, Kim Psalia, Virginia Schmied, Hannah Dahlen, Nadia Badawi, Katherine Gregory, Karen Peters, Jann Foster
{"title":"肠内喂养管放置和胃残余抽吸实践的横断面调查:需要一个循证临床实践指南。","authors":"Sheeja Perumbil Pathrose,&nbsp;Kaye Spence,&nbsp;Christine Taylor,&nbsp;Kim Psalia,&nbsp;Virginia Schmied,&nbsp;Hannah Dahlen,&nbsp;Nadia Badawi,&nbsp;Katherine Gregory,&nbsp;Karen Peters,&nbsp;Jann Foster","doi":"10.1097/ANC.0000000000000822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preterm infants routinely require enteral feeding via nasogastric or orogastric tubes as an alternative to oral feeding to meet their nutritional needs. Anecdotal evidence suggests variations in practice related to correct tube placement and assessment of feed intolerance.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the current practices of enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and gastric residual (GR) aspiration of neonatal clinicians in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional online survey comprising 24 questions was distributed to nursing and medical health professionals working in Australian neonatal care units through 2 e-mail listservs made available by professional organizations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The survey was completed by 129 clinicians. A single method was practiced by 50% of the clinicians in confirming tube placement, and most common practice was assessing the pH of GR aspirate. The majority of respondents (96%) reported that they relied on GR aspiration and clinical signs to determine feeding tolerance and subsequent decisions such as ceasing or decreasing feeds. However, the frequency of aspiration, the amount and color of aspirate considered to be normal/abnormal, and decisions on whether to replace gastric aspirate or whether aspiration should be performed during continuous tube feeding varied.</p><p><strong>Implication for practice: </strong>This study demonstrated considerable variability in clinical practice for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and GR aspiration despite most respondents reporting using a unit-based clinical practice guideline. Our study findings highlight the need for not only developing evidence-based practice guidelines for safe and consistent clinical practice but also ensuring that these guidelines are followed by all clinicians.</p><p><strong>Implication for research: </strong>Further research is needed to establish evidence-based methods both for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and for the assessment of feeding intolerance during tube feeding. In addition, the reasons why evidence-based methods are not followed must be investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":520547,"journal":{"name":"Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses","volume":" ","pages":"418-424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Cross-sectional Survey of Enteral Feeding Tube Placement and Gastric Residual Aspiration Practices: Need for an Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline.\",\"authors\":\"Sheeja Perumbil Pathrose,&nbsp;Kaye Spence,&nbsp;Christine Taylor,&nbsp;Kim Psalia,&nbsp;Virginia Schmied,&nbsp;Hannah Dahlen,&nbsp;Nadia Badawi,&nbsp;Katherine Gregory,&nbsp;Karen Peters,&nbsp;Jann Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ANC.0000000000000822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preterm infants routinely require enteral feeding via nasogastric or orogastric tubes as an alternative to oral feeding to meet their nutritional needs. Anecdotal evidence suggests variations in practice related to correct tube placement and assessment of feed intolerance.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the current practices of enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and gastric residual (GR) aspiration of neonatal clinicians in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional online survey comprising 24 questions was distributed to nursing and medical health professionals working in Australian neonatal care units through 2 e-mail listservs made available by professional organizations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The survey was completed by 129 clinicians. A single method was practiced by 50% of the clinicians in confirming tube placement, and most common practice was assessing the pH of GR aspirate. The majority of respondents (96%) reported that they relied on GR aspiration and clinical signs to determine feeding tolerance and subsequent decisions such as ceasing or decreasing feeds. However, the frequency of aspiration, the amount and color of aspirate considered to be normal/abnormal, and decisions on whether to replace gastric aspirate or whether aspiration should be performed during continuous tube feeding varied.</p><p><strong>Implication for practice: </strong>This study demonstrated considerable variability in clinical practice for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and GR aspiration despite most respondents reporting using a unit-based clinical practice guideline. Our study findings highlight the need for not only developing evidence-based practice guidelines for safe and consistent clinical practice but also ensuring that these guidelines are followed by all clinicians.</p><p><strong>Implication for research: </strong>Further research is needed to establish evidence-based methods both for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and for the assessment of feeding intolerance during tube feeding. In addition, the reasons why evidence-based methods are not followed must be investigated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"418-424\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:早产儿通常需要通过鼻胃管或口胃管进行肠内喂养,以替代口服喂养,以满足其营养需求。坊间证据表明,在实践中与正确放置管和评估饲料不耐受有关的差异。目的:了解澳大利亚新生儿临床医生肠内喂养管放置确认和胃残液(GR)抽吸的现状。方法:通过专业组织提供的2个电子邮件列表,向在澳大利亚新生儿护理单位工作的护理和医疗卫生专业人员分发了一份包含24个问题的横断面在线调查。结果:129名临床医生完成了调查。50%的临床医生采用单一方法确认插管,最常见的做法是评估GR吸出液的pH值。大多数答复者(96%)报告说,他们依靠GR吸入和临床体征来确定喂养耐受性和随后的决定,如停止或减少喂养。然而,吸痰的频率、吸痰量和颜色是否正常/异常、是否更换胃吸痰或是否应在持续管饲过程中进行吸痰的决定各不相同。实践意义:该研究表明,尽管大多数应答者报告使用基于单位的临床实践指南,但在肠内喂食管放置确认和GR吸入的临床实践中存在相当大的差异。我们的研究结果强调,不仅需要为安全和一致的临床实践制定循证实践指南,还需要确保所有临床医生都遵循这些指南。研究意义:需要进一步的研究来建立以证据为基础的方法来确定肠内喂养管的放置和评估管喂养过程中的喂养不耐受。此外,必须调查不采用循证方法的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Cross-sectional Survey of Enteral Feeding Tube Placement and Gastric Residual Aspiration Practices: Need for an Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: Preterm infants routinely require enteral feeding via nasogastric or orogastric tubes as an alternative to oral feeding to meet their nutritional needs. Anecdotal evidence suggests variations in practice related to correct tube placement and assessment of feed intolerance.

Purpose: To determine the current practices of enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and gastric residual (GR) aspiration of neonatal clinicians in Australia.

Methods: A cross-sectional online survey comprising 24 questions was distributed to nursing and medical health professionals working in Australian neonatal care units through 2 e-mail listservs made available by professional organizations.

Findings: The survey was completed by 129 clinicians. A single method was practiced by 50% of the clinicians in confirming tube placement, and most common practice was assessing the pH of GR aspirate. The majority of respondents (96%) reported that they relied on GR aspiration and clinical signs to determine feeding tolerance and subsequent decisions such as ceasing or decreasing feeds. However, the frequency of aspiration, the amount and color of aspirate considered to be normal/abnormal, and decisions on whether to replace gastric aspirate or whether aspiration should be performed during continuous tube feeding varied.

Implication for practice: This study demonstrated considerable variability in clinical practice for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and GR aspiration despite most respondents reporting using a unit-based clinical practice guideline. Our study findings highlight the need for not only developing evidence-based practice guidelines for safe and consistent clinical practice but also ensuring that these guidelines are followed by all clinicians.

Implication for research: Further research is needed to establish evidence-based methods both for enteral feeding tube placement confirmation and for the assessment of feeding intolerance during tube feeding. In addition, the reasons why evidence-based methods are not followed must be investigated.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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