The Current Status of Enteral Feeding Management in General Surgical Ward.
- Author:
Yun Jung KIM
1
;
Young Mee BAEK
;
So Yun KIM
;
Mi Reu MOON
;
Kyung Hee PARK
;
So Hee PAECK
;
Moon Young SEO
;
Sook Young OH
;
Eun Ji LEE
;
Hyun Bin LIM
;
Ji Ye HWANG
;
In Sun CHUNG
;
Jae Kil LEE
;
Kyung Sik KIM
;
Chong Bai KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Enteral nutrition; Standardized guideline; The current state of enteral feeding management; A standardized protocol on charting
- MeSH: Colon; Diagnosis; Duodenal Neoplasms; Duodenum; Enteral Nutrition*; Female; Flushing; Hemoperitoneum; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Jejunum; Korea; Male; Nutritional Support; Pancreas; Peritonitis; Rectal Neoplasms; Residual Volume; Retrospective Studies; Seoul; Stomach
- From:Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2015;7(1):23-27
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: PURPOSE: Development of a standardized guideline and assessment tool is necessary. Therefore, the aim is to investigate the current state of enteral feeding management and to develop a basis for a standardized guideline. METHODS: From July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, this study was conducted retrospectively for 100 patients who had enteral feeding more than once only in the Intensive Care Unit, after General Surgery at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. The analysis was based on the following factors; age, diagnosis, name of the operation, period of start and the end of enteral feeding, method of injection, flushing method, residual volumes of the stomach, location and the size of the tube, medication through tubing, and complications related to enteral feeding. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.5, 65 men and 35 women. There were 30 malignant tumors of the hepatobiliary system and pancreas, 8 gastric and duodenal cancer, 4 colon and rectal cancer, 11 peritonitis, hemoperitoneum, and bowel obstruction, and 47 others. The average period of performing enteral feeding was 11.7 days and the locations of enteral feeding tube were stomach 56%, jejunum 39%, duodenum 3%, and undescribed 2%. The methods of enteral feeding were as follows; continuous feeding 19%, cyclic feeding 75%, intermittent and bolus feeding 3%, respectively. Only 1% of patients were on flushing and 16% on stomach residual. The most common complication of enteral feeding was clogging of the tube (5%). CONCLUSION: Due to the lack of detailed charting related to enteral feeding, we were unable to analyze the statistics on the relevance of complication which was the primary endpoint. As a result, development of a standardized protocol on charting enteral feeding is suggested for optimal enteral nutritional support.
