Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:
Post-gastrostomy complications range from 8 to 30%. These complications often occur following discharge into the community and may result in hospital readmission. Our unit previously reported a readmission rate of 23% in 6 months. There is a paucity of data evaluating community gastrostomy management. We therefore aimed to evaluate the benefits of a dedicated dietetic home enteral feed (HEF) team.
SUBJECTS/METHODS:
Demographic data, gastrostomy complications, readmission rates and HEF team input was prospectively collected from a cohort of discharged gastrostomy patients over a 1-year period and comparisons made with a similar historical cohort.
RESULTS:
A total of 371 complications were encountered in 313 gastrostomy patients during this period, with the commonest complication being over-granulated stoma sites (27%). Of these, 227 hospital admissions were avoided because of direct actions taken by the HEF team. Fifty-nine gastrostomy patients were admitted to the hospital, of which only seven (12%) were specifically for gastrostomy-related problems. Introduction of the HEF team significantly reduced gastrostomy-related hospital readmissions from 23 to 2% (P=0.0001).
CONCLUSION:
Although patients with gastrostomies may need attention to a variety of complex medical problems, many encounter problems specifically related to their gastrostomy after discharge. This is the largest prospective study demonstrating how dietitians trained in gastrostomy aftercare may optimize the management of gastrostomy complications and reduce unnecessary hospital readmissions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
£169.00 per year
only £14.08 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Westaby D, Young A, O’Toole P, Smith G, Sanders DS (2010). The provision of a percutaneously placed enteral tube feeding service. Gut 59, 1592–1605.
Norton B, Homer-Ward M, Donnelly MT, Long RG, Holmes GK (1996). A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ 312, 13–16.
Mazzini L, Corra T, Zaccala M, Mora G, Del Piano M, Galante M (1995). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and enteral nutrition in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol 242, 695–698.
Rabeneck L, Wray NP, Petersen NJ (1996). Long-term outcomes of patients receiving percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. J Gen Intern Med 11, 287–293.
Grant MD, Rudberg MA, Brody JA (1998). Gastrostomy placement and mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA 279, 1973–1976.
Cuerda C, Planas M, Gomez Candela C, Luengo LM (2009). Trends in home enteral nutrition in Spain: analysis of the NADYA registry 1992-2007. Nutr Hosp 24, 347–353.
Jones B (2008). Annual BANS report 2008: artificial nutrition support in the UK, 2000–2007, http://www.bapen.org.uk.
Johnston SD, Tham TC, Mason M (2008). Death after PEG: results of the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Gastrointest Endosc 68, 223–227.
Kobayashi K, Cooper GS, Chak A, Sivak Jr MV, Wong RC (2002). A prospective evaluation of outcome in patients referred for PEG placement. Gastrointest Endosc 55, 500–506.
Callahan CM, Haag KM, Weinberger M, Tierney WM, Buchanan NN, Stump TE et al. (2000). Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 48, 1048–1054.
Loser C, Aschl G, Hebuterne X, Mathus-Vliegen EM, Muscaritoli M, Niv Y et al. (2005). ESPEN guidelines on artificial enteral nutrition--percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Clin Nutr 24, 848–861.
Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, Seamon MJ, Lukaszczyk JJ, Martin ND et al. (2007). Complications related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. A comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 16, 407–418.
Klein S, Heare BR, Soloway RD (1990). The ‘buried bumper syndrome’: a complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Am J Gastroenterol 85, 448–451.
Healey F, Sanders DS, Lamont T, Scarpello J, Agbabiaka T (2010). Early detection of complications after gastrostomy: summary of a safety report from the National Patient Safety Agency. BMJ 340, c2160.
Arrowsmith HL (1994). Discharging patients receiving enteral nutrition. Br J Nurs 3, 551–557.
Scott F, Beech R, Smedley F, Timmis L, Stokes E, Jones P et al. (2005). Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of the costs and consequences of systematic nutrition team follow-up over 12 mo after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Nutrition 21, 1071–1077.
Sanders DS, Carter MJ, D’Silva J, McAlindon ME, Willemse PJ, Bardham KD (2001). Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a prospective analysis of hospital support required and complications following discharge to the community. Eur J Clin Nutr 55, 610–614.
Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant Jr RJ (1980). Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 15, 872–875.
Laasch HU, Wilbraham L, Bullen K, Marriott A, Lawrance JA, Johnson RJ et al. (2003). Gastrostomy insertion: comparing the options—PEG, RIG or PIG? Clin Radiol 58, 398–405.
Sampson EL, Candy B, Jones L (2009). Enteral tube feeding for older people with advanced dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 15, CD007209.
Sanders DS, Carter MJ, D’Silva J, James G, Bolton RP, Bardhan KD (2000). Survival analysis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding: a worse outcome in patients with dementia. Am J Gastroenterol 95, 1472–1475.
Department of Health (2009). Transforming Community Services: Ambition, Action, Achievement. Transforming Services for People with Long Term Conditions. DH: London.
Best C, Hitchings H (2010). Enteral tube feeding—from hospital to home. Br J Nurs 19, 174, 176–179.
Madigan SM (2003). Home enteral-tube feeding: the changing role of the dietitian. Proc Nutr Soc 62, 761–763.
McNamara EP, Flood P, Kennedy NP (2000). Enteral tube feeding in the community: survey of adult patients discharged from a Dublin hospital. Clin Nutr 19, 15–22.
Hampton S (2007). Understanding overgranulation in tissue viability practice. Br J Community Nurs 12, S24–S30.
Lipp A, Lusardi G (2006). Systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18, CD005571.
Madigan SM, O’Neill S, Clarke J, L’Estrange F, MacAuley DC (2002). Assessing the dietetic needs of different patient groups receiving enteral tube feeding in primary care. J Hum Nutr Diet 15, 179–184.
Brotherton AM, Judd PA (2007). Quality of life in adult enteral tube feeding patients. J Hum Nutr Diet 20, 513–522; quiz 523–525.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This work was presented in abstract form as a poster at the British Society of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting (March 2011, Birmingham).Contributors: MK, SW, GS and JG were involved in writing the manuscript and data collection. DSS and MEMcA were responsible for initial study concept and revision of the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kurien, M., White, S., Simpson, G. et al. Managing patients with gastrostomy tubes in the community: Can a dedicated enteral feed dietetic service reduce hospital readmissions?. Eur J Clin Nutr 66, 757–760 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.19
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.19