Literature DB >> 21958334

National survey evaluating service provision for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy within the UK.

Matthew Kurien1, David Westaby, Chris Romaya, David S Sanders.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding has a significant morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Patient selection, procedural volume, timing of insertion and aftercare may have a direct bearing on mortality. We aimed to establish whether variation in PEG practice exists within the UK.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) approached all NHS hospitals providing an endoscopy service (n = 260). A custom designed web-based questionnaire was circulated.
RESULTS: The response rate was 83% (n = 215); 57% were Joint Advisory Group (JAG) accredited; 33% (70/215) of hospitals inserted more than 75 PEGs a year (4 hospitals inserting >150). Stroke and neurodegenerative conditions were the main indications for PEG insertion. However, 36% (77/215) of hospitals inserted PEGs for dementia. PEG insertion timings varied: 33% (72/215) had a strict policy of waiting more than 2 weeks from referral to insertion, 14% (30/215) performed immediately and 34% (74/215) determined the time delay depending on the underlying condition. Local guidelines for PEG insertion existed in 87% (186/215) of hospitals and 78% (168/215) had access to radiologically inserted gastrostomies. Prophylactic antibiotics were used in 93% (201/215) of hospitals. Only 64% (137/215) had a dedicated PEG aftercare service. This was significantly lower in non-JAG accredited units (p = 0.008).
CONCLUSION: This National BSG survey demonstrates variations in practice particularly with regards to PEG insertion in patients with dementia, the timing of PEG insertion and PEG aftercare. These variations in practice may be important factors accounting for the significant morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21958334     DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2011.619278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0036-5521            Impact factor:   2.423


  5 in total

1.  Cui bono? PEG feeding.

Authors:  Heather Parr; David S Sanders
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.659

2.  A comparison of survival, pneumonia, and hospitalization in patients with advanced dementia and dysphagia receiving either oral or enteral nutrition.

Authors:  M T G Cintra; N A de Rezende; E N de Moraes; L C M Cunha; H O da Gama Torres
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.075

3.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are placed in elderly adults in Japan with advanced dementia regardless of expectation of improvement in quality of life.

Authors:  M Nakanishi; K Hattori
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.075

4.  Trends regarding percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A nationwide population-based study from 1997 to 2010.

Authors:  Wei-Kuo Chang; Kuen-Tze Lin; Chen-Liang Tsai; Chi-Hsiang Chung; Wu-Chien Chien; Chun-Shu Lin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  A feasibility study incorporating a pilot randomised controlled trial of oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy tube versus oral feeding plus as-needed nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing chemoradiation for head and neck cancer (TUBE trial): study protocol.

Authors:  Vinidh Paleri; Joshua Wood; Joanne Patterson; Deborah D Stocken; Mike Cole; Luke Vale; Jeremy Franks; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Rachael Donnelly; Stewart Barclay; Tim Rapley; Nikki Rousseau
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2016-06-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.