Literature DB >> 18768101

What you think is not what they get: significant discrepancies between prescribed and administered doses of tube feeding.

Paulina W J H van den Broek1, Ellen L Rasmussen-Conrad, Anton H J Naber, Geert J A Wanten.   

Abstract

Enteral tube feeding remains an indispensible strategy to treat disease-related malnutrition. In the present study we evaluated in clinical practice whether prescribed feeding volumes correspond with administered quantities and we highlight possible causes for discrepancies. During a 4-month observation period data from all patients fully depending on tube feeding (1.5-2.5 litres/d) were collected in a Dutch 900-bed academic hospital. The range for administered feeds to be adequate was set at 100 +/- 10% of the prescribed dose. Fifty-five patients (mean age 57 (SD 30) years) were included. Tube feeding was given continuously via pump (n 37) or drip (n 3), in portions (n 14) or by combined modes (n 1). Administered tube feeding amounts were significantly lower than prescribed in 40% of all patients (P < or = 0.001). The mean ratio of administered v. prescribed energy was 87 (SD 21) % (all modes), 85 (SD 24) % (pump), 94 (SD 12) % (portions) and 88.3 (SD 18.1) % (drip), respectively. The mean energy deficit amounted to 1089 kJ/d (range -7955 to +795). Only on intensive care unit wards did feeding administration meet the set goal. Feeding interruptions because of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures were the main reason for decreased intakes. Our findings show that many patients relying on tube feeding do not meet their nutritional goals during hospital stay. This problem can be addressed by adapting feeding schedules and the use of formulations with a higher energy density.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18768101     DOI: 10.1017/S0007114508986852

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Nutr        ISSN: 0007-1145            Impact factor:   3.718


  5 in total

1.  Adequacy of energy and protein balance of enteral nutrition in intensive care: what are the limiting factors?

Authors:  Lia Mara Kauchi Ribeiro; Ronaldo Sousa Oliveira Filho; Lucia Caruso; Patricia Azevedo Lima; Nágila Raquel Teixeira Damasceno; Francisco Garcia Soriano
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun

2.  Randomised controlled trial of early prophylactic feeding vs standard care in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Teresa E Brown; Merrilyn D Banks; Brett G M Hughes; Charles Y Lin; Lizbeth M Kenny; Judith D Bauer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  Compliance and Adherence to Enteral Nutrition Treatment in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Alicia Gea Cabrera; María Sanz-Lorente; Javier Sanz-Valero; Elsa López-Pintor
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Towards a Mobile-Based Platform for Traceability Control and Hazard Analysis in the Context of Parenteral Nutrition: Description of a Framework and a Prototype App.

Authors:  Víctor M Alonso Rorís; Luis M Álvarez Sabucedo; Carmina Wanden-Berghe; Juan M Santos Gago; Javier Sanz-Valero
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-06-07

5.  High Frequency of Non-Compliance with Quality Indicators of Enteral and Parenteral Nutritional Therapy in Hospitalized Patients.

Authors:  Daiane Aparecida Nogueira; Lara Princia Ferreira; Renata Paniago Andrade de Lúcia; Geórgia das Graças Pena
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 5.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.