 |
|
Utilization of Nasogastric Feeding Tubes in a Group of Chronically Ill, Elderly Patients in a Community Hospital
Timothy E. Quill, MD
Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(9):1937-1941.
Abstract
• Physician practice patterns and attitudes about the use of nasogastric (NG) feeding tubes in a group of elderly patients with severe chronic illness were explored in a community-based teaching hospital in Rochester, NY, using a physician questionnaire and a chart review. The physician questionnaire showed considerable divergence in beliefs about whether this treatment is extraordinary (42%), ordinary (21 %), or comfort oriented (37%). Physicians who believed it was extraordinary treatment said they would recommend it less often than those who believed it to be ordinary or comfort oriented in the abstract scenario of a chronically ill, elderly patient who was not maintaining adequate nutrition. Most physician-respondents believed that the patient's wishes should guide the decision. Independently, medical records were retrospectively reviewed for all patients admitted to the hospital in the previous year who had an NG feeding tube placed, who were over the age of 70 years, and who had primary diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident, organic brain syndrome, or metastatic cancer. Contrary to the questionnaire responses, oral or written consent was documented in only 2 of 51 insertions of NG tubes. Of the 7 charts where a surrogate gave consent, only one expressed consideration of the patient's actual wishes. The clinical reasoning leading to the decision documented in the chart emphasized biomedical concerns much more than the patient's quality of life (8:1 ratio). Sixty-four percent (35/55) of patients in the study group died in the hospital, including 90% (19/21) of those who were to be treated with a comfort orientation. In only 2 of 55 patients was medical improvement cited as the reason for discontinuing use of the NG feeding tube. Restraints were used in 53% of the patients to keep the tube in. Recommendations are made that emphasize the need for active patient and family participation in the decision to use an NG feeding tube, requiring a balanced presentation of potential benefits, burdens, and limitations in patients with severe irreversible illnesses.
(Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1937-1941)
Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Medicine, The Genesee Hospital, Rochester, NY, and Medicine and Psychiatry, Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester (NY) School of Medicine and Dentistry.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication February 28, 1989.
Reprint requests to Department of Medicine, The Genesee Hospital, 224 Alexander St, Rochester, NY 14607 (Dr Quill).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Tube feeding in advanced dementia: the metabolic perspective
Hoffer
BMJ 2006;333:1214-1215.
FULL TEXT
Tube Feeding in Patients With Advanced Dementia: A Review of the Evidence
Finucane et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1365-1370.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lack of Evidence About Tube Feeding--Food for Thought
McCann
JAMA 1999;282:1380-1381.
FULL TEXT
Gastrostomy Placement and Mortality Among Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries
Grant et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1973-1976.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Who Decides? Physicians' Willingness to Use Life-Sustaining Treatment
Hanson et al.
Arch Intern Med 1996;156:785-789.
ABSTRACT
Comfort Care for Terminally III Patients: The Appropriate Use of Nutrition and Hydration
McCann et al.
JAMA 1994;272:1263-1266.
ABSTRACT
Tube Feeding: Internists' Attitudes Regarding Ethical Obligations
Hodges et al.
Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1013-1020.
ABSTRACT
Management of neurological dysphagia
Park and O'Neill
Clin Rehabil 1994;8:166-174.
Utilization of Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Chronically III Elderly Patients
LEE and HARFORD
Arch Intern Med 1990;150:2204-2204.
ABSTRACT
Benefits and Burdens of Tube Feeding and Physical Restraints
MEER
Arch Intern Med 1990;150:694-694.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the Benefits and Burdens of Tube Feedings
LO and DORNBRAND
Arch Intern Med 1989;149:1925-1926.
ABSTRACT
|
