Parental distress around supplementing breastfed babies using nasogastric tubes on the post-natal ward: a theme from an ethnographic study

‘The definitive version is available at: www3.interscience.wiley.com ' Copyright Blackwell Publishing. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8709.2008.00165.xThere is abundant evidence of the benefits of breastfeeding. In the UK, supplementation in hospital has consistently been shown to be associated with shortened duration of breastfeeding. This paper reports on a subset of the data from an ethnographic study that explored the expectations, beliefs and experiences of mothers and health professionals concerning supplementation, using a variety of methods, of breastfed babies in an English maternity unit in 2002. This paper aims to describe the expectations, beliefs and experiences of mothers and health professionals concerning supplementation by nasogastric (NG) tube on the post-natal ward. Participant observation was carried out on day and night shifts and at weekends over 9 months. Mothers, midwives, neonatal nurses, health care assistants and senior paediatricians were interviewed. Categories and themes were generated. The researchers' constructs of 'the essential method', when the tube was the method needed for medical reasons, and 'the chosen method', when other methods of oral feeding should have been possible, emerged. The latter included time pressures and the avoidance of any form of oral activity that might perhaps make return to the breast more difficult. The data concerning the use of NG tubes for supplementation yielded the specific theme of parental distress. In the absence of evidence that supplementation by NG tube on the post-natal ward is associated with greater breastfeeding success than other methods, the use of the tube to avoid any form of 'oral confusion' should be discontinued. Its use primarily to save time should not be considered acceptable.Peer reviewe

Effect of apneic oxygenation with intubation to reduce severe desaturation and adverse tracheal intubation-associated events in critically ill children

Background: Determine if apneic oxygenation (AO) delivered via nasal cannula during the apneic phase of tracheal intubation (TI), reduces adverse TI-associated events (TIAEs) in children. Methods: AO was implemented across 14 pediatric intensive care units as a quality improvement intervention during 2016–2020. Implementation consisted of an intubation safety checklist, leadership endorsement, local champion, and data feedback to frontline clinicians. Standardized oxygen flow via nasal cannula for AO was as follows: 5 L/min for infants (< 1 year), 10 L/min for young children (1–7 years), and 15 L/min for older children (≥ 8 years). Outcomes were the occurrence of adverse TIAEs (primary) and hypoxemia (SpO2 < 80%, secondary). Results: Of 6549 TIs during the study period, 2554 (39.0%) occurred during the pre-implementation phase and 3995 (61.0%) during post-implementation phase. AO utilization increased from 23 to 68%, p < 0.001. AO was utilized less often when intubating infants, those with a primary cardiac diagnosis or difficult airway features, and patient intubated due to respiratory or neurological failure or shock. Conversely, AO was used more often in TIs done for procedures and those assisted by video laryngoscopy. AO utilization was associated with a lower incidence of adverse TIAEs (AO 10.5% vs. without AO 13.5%, p < 0.001), aOR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58–0.98, p = 0.03) after adjusting for site clustering (primary analysis). However, after further adjusting for patient and provider characteristics (secondary analysis), AO utilization was not independently associated with the occurrence of adverse TIAEs: aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72–1.12, p = 0.33 and the occurrence of hypoxemia was not different: AO 14.2% versus without AO 15.2%, p = 0.43. Conclusion: While AO use was associated with a lower occurrence of adverse TIAEs in children who required TI in the pediatric ICU after accounting for site-level clustering, this result may be explained by differences in patient, provider, and practice factors.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCPediatrics, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearche