RESUMO
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To measure the reliability of pH testing to confirm ongoing nasogastric tube (NGT) position and to document associated complications. BACKGROUND: Confirming NGT position is essential, as use of an incorrectly positioned tube can cause harm. Substantial evidence examines initial confirmation of NGT position, yet limited evidence exists considers NGT displacement which is identified via ongoing NGT position tests. In the NHS, pH testing is recommended to confirm ongoing NGT position; however, there may be an association with excess X-rays and missed enteral nutrition and/or medications. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using STROBE checklist. METHODS: Data collected from medical records of 136 patients with NGTs in a London NHS Trust included pH tests, test results and complications related to ongoing pH tests which failed to confirm the tube was positioned in the stomach, that is, X-rays, and disruptions to enteral nutrition and medication. Cohen's Kappa determined pH test reliability. RESULTS: Of 1381 pH tests conducted to confirm NGT position, five (0.3%) correctly identified an NGT displacement, and one (0.07%) failed to identify displacement before use. The reliability of ongoing pH tests using Cohen's Kappa was minimal (0.29). Ongoing pH tests that failed to confirm a correctly positioned NGT led to 31 (22.8%) patients having X-rays, 24 (17.6%) missing >10% of prescribed enteral nutrition and 25 (18.4%) missing a critical medication. CONCLUSION: Ongoing NGT position testing using pH tests did not prevent the use of a displaced tube, and more than one-fifth of patients required X-rays to confirm a correctly position NGT, contributing to missed medications and enteral nutrition. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Caution should be used when confirming ongoing NGT position with a pH test. Future guidelines should balance the risk of using a displaced tube with potential delays to nutrition and/or medication. More research is needed to explore alternative methods of ongoing NGT position testing.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cirrhosis experience an unpredictable disease trajectory but are infrequently referred to palliative care (PC) services and rarely undertake advance care planning (ACP). AIM: We assessed whether a novel model of care increased provision of meaningful PC in advanced cirrhosis compared with standard of care (SOC). METHODS: Thirty consecutive hepatology clinic outpatients with advanced cirrhosis, meeting one or more cirrhosis-related PC referral criteria, consented to treatment in the HepatoCare clinic (PC physician, specialist liver nurse, pharmacist) in parallel with usual specialist hepatology care. A control cohort of 30 consecutive outpatients with advanced cirrhosis undergoing SOC treatment was retrospectively identified for comparison. The primary outcome was provision of meaningful PC using HepatoCare versus SOC. Additional clinical outcomes were assessed over 12 months or until death and significant differences were identified. RESULTS: The intervention and control cohorts had similarly advanced cirrhosis (mean Child-Pugh scores 8.7 vs 8.2, P = 0.46; mean model for end-stage liver disease scores 14.4 vs 14.6, P = 0.88) but a lower 12-month mortality rate (33% HepatoCare vs 67% SOC; P = 0.02). The intervention cohort experienced higher uptake of formal ACP (100% vs 25% for the control cohort) and outpatient PC referral (100% vs 40%), and were more likely to die at home or in a PC bed/hospice (80% vs 30%). The majority of the HepatoCare cohort (81%) had medications safely deprescribed and experienced fewer unplanned admission days (470 vs 794). CONCLUSIONS: HepatoCare is a novel multidisciplinary model of care that integrates effective PC and specialist hepatology management to improve outcomes in advanced cirrhosis.