16 research outputs found

    Subjective Distresses of Nasogastric Tube Feeding

    Full text link
    Health care professionals assume that tube feeding is an unpleasant, distressing experience for patients, which is only partially substantiated by experience. Thirty patients were interviewed via a tube feeding and hospital experience checklist (a 47–item interview schedule). Common experiences were operationally defined as those felt by at least 50%; subjectively distressful experiences were those identified by patients as causing distress. The most common and most distressful experiences of nasogastric tube feeding were: sensory irritations and sensory deprivation. The psychosensory irritation experiences were: thirst, sore nose or throat, dry mouth, runny nose, a tube in the nose, taking food through a tube, breathing through the mouth, breathing with a tube in the nose, taking food in a treatment type container, and taking food with a different texture and smell than usual. The psychosensory deprivation experiences were: an unsatisfied appetite for certain foods, deprivation of tasting, chewing, swallowing food, and drinking liquids, limited mobility, and deprivation of regular food. Except for burping, gastrointestinal symptoms were not common though they were usually distressful. This information has been used to develop teaching programs which are being tested for effectiveness in reducing distress associated with nasogastric tube feeding.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68702/2/10.1177_014860717900300204.pd

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat
    corecore