Dataset Information

Selecting pH cut-offs for the safe verification of nasogastric feeding tube placement: a decision analytical modelling approach.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The existing British National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) safety guideline recommends testing the pH of nasogastric (NG) tube aspirates. Feeding is considered safe if a pH of 5.5 or lower has been observed; otherwise chest X-rays are recommended. Our previous research found that at 5.5, the pH test lacks sensitivity towards oesophageal placements, a major risk identified by feeding experts. The aim of this research is to use a decision analytic modelling approach to systematically assess the safety of the pH test under cut-offs 1-9. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We mapped out the care pathway according to the existing safety guideline where the pH test is used as a first-line test, followed by chest x-rays. Decision outcomes were scored on a 0-100 scale in terms of safety. Sensitivities and specificities of the pH test at each cut-off were extracted from our previous research. Aggregating outcome scores and probabilities resulted in weighted scores which enabled an analysis of the relative safety of the checking procedure under various pH cut-offs. RESULTS:The pH test was the safest under cut-off 5 when there was ?30% of NG tube misplacements. Under cut-off 5, respiratory feeding was excluded; oesophageal feeding was kept to a minimum to balance the need of chest X-rays for patients with a pH higher than 5. Routine chest X-rays were less safe than the pH test while to feed all without safety checks was the most risky. DISCUSSION:The safety of the current checking procedure is sensitive to the choice of pH cut-offs, the impact of feeding delays, the accuracy of the pH in the oesophagus, as well as the extent of tube misplacements. CONCLUSIONS:The pH test with 5 as the cut-off was the safest overall. It is important to understand the local clinical environment so that appropriate choice of pH cut-offs can be made to maximise safety and to minimise the use of chest X-rays. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN11170249; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Ni MZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695306 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selecting pH cut-offs for the safe verification of nasogastric feeding tube placement: a decision analytical modelling approach.

Ni Melody Zhifang MZ Huddy Jeremy R JR Priest Oliver H OH Olsen Sisse S Phillips Lawrence D LD Bossuyt Patrick M M PMM Hanna George B GB

BMJ open 20171104 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>The existing British National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) safety guideline recommends testing the pH of nasogastric (NG) tube aspirates. Feeding is considered safe if a pH of 5.5 or lower has been observed; otherwise chest X-rays are recommended. Our previous research found that at 5.5, the pH test lacks sensitivity towards oesophageal placements, a major risk identified by feeding experts. The aim of this research is to use a decision analytic modelling approach to systemati ...[more]

PMID: 29102995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdolescents with severe restrictive eating disorders often require enteral feeding to provide lifesaving treatment. Nasogastric feeding (NG) is a method of enteral nutrition often used in inpatient settings to treat medical instability, to supplement poor oral intake or to increase nutritional intake. This systematic review sets out to describe current practice of NG in young people with eating disorders.MethodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted by searching AMED, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from 2000 to 2020. Inclusion terms were: enteral feeding by nasogastric tube, under 18 years, eating disorders, and primary research. Exclusion terms: psychiatric disorders other than eating disorders; non-primary research; no outcomes specific to NG feeding and participants over 18 years. Titles and abstracts were screened by all authors before reviewing full length articles. Quality assessment, including risk of bias, was conducted by all authors.ResultsTwenty-nine studies met the full criteria. 86% of studies were deemed high or medium risk of bias due to the type of study: 34.4% retrospective cohort and 10.3% RCT; 17.2% were qualitative. Studies identified 1) a wide range of refeeding regimes depending on country, settings, and the reason for initiation; 2) standard practice is to introduce Nasogastric feeds (NG) if medically unstable or oral intake alone is inadequate; 3) NG may enable greater initial weight gain due to increased caloric intake; 4) there are 3 main types of feeding regime: continuous, nocturnal and bolus; 5) complications included nasal irritation, epistaxis, electrolyte disturbance, distress and tube removal; 6) where NG is routinely implemented to increase total calorie intake, length of stay in hospital may be reduced; however where NG is implemented in correlation to severity of symptoms, it may be increased; 7) both medical and psychiatric wards most commonly report using NG in addition to oral intake.ConclusionsNG feeding is a safe and efficacious method of increasing total calorie intake by either supplementing oral intake or continuously. There are currently no direct comparisons between continuous, nocturnal or bolus regimes, which may be used to direct future treatment for YP with ED.

Dataset Information

Selecting pH cut-offs for the safe verification of nasogastric feeding tube placement: a decision analytical modelling approach.

Publications

Selecting pH cut-offs for the safe verification of nasogastric feeding tube placement: a decision analytical modelling approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets