This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sorokin, R. Articles by Gottlieb, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sorokin, R. Articles by Gottlieb, J. E. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Safety Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Enhancing Patient Safety During Feeding-Tube Insertion: A Review of More Than 2000 Insertions

From the Department of Medicine, Jefferson Medical College and Office of Clinical Affairs, Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Correspondence: Rachel Sorokin, MD, 1015 Chestnut Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Electronic mail may be sent to rachel.sorokin{at}jefferson.edu.

Background: An intervention to reduce complications from insertion of small-bore nasogastric feeding tubes was performed. Methods: This was a Performance Improvement project with the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) format; interventions occurred in July 2003. Electronic searches of risk management and radiology databases identified feeding-tube malpositions and complications from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2004. Chart abstraction and a pre- and postintervention comparison were performed. Interventions were adoption of a more compliant feeding tube, direct supervision of residents, technology-guided insertion, and implementation of explicit policies and procedures. Results: Of all small-bore nasogastric feeding-tube placements, 1.3%–2.4% resulted in 50 documented cases of feeding-tube malpositions during 4 years. Over half of the 50 patients were mechanically ventilated, and only 2 had a normal mental status. There were 13 complications (26% of malpositions), including 2 deaths, which were directly attributed to the feeding-tube malposition. Only 2 of the 13 complications and none of the misplacements had been recorded in the risk management database; most cases were identified from the search of radiology reports. In the 15-month postintervention period, no complications were identified. The control chart showed that after the intervention, there was a significant increase in the "number between" tube insertions without complications, confirming the effectiveness of the performance improvement (PI) project. Conclusions: Unassisted feeding tube insertion carries significant risk in vulnerable patients, which can be mitigated. Voluntary reporting appears inadequate to capture complications from feeding tube insertion.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 30, No. 5, 440-445 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607106030005440


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Bourgault and M. A. Halm Feeding Tube Placement in Adults: Safe Verification Method For Blindly Inserted Tubes Am. J. Crit. Care., January 1, 2009; 18(1): 73 - 76. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Roberts, P. Echeverria, and S. A. Gabriel Devices and Techniques for Bedside Enteral Feeding Tube Placement Nutr Clin Pract, August 1, 2007; 22(4): 412 - 420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. de Aguilar-Nascimento and K. A. Kudsk Clinical Costs of Feeding Tube Placement JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, July 1, 2007; 31(4): 269 - 273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]