What are three nursing considerations for client safety when receiving a tube feeding?

J Int Med Res. 2020 Apr; 48(4): 0300060520920051.

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to investigate practices of nasogastric tube (NGT) intubation and feeding for adults by clinical nurses in China.

Methods

A self-designed and validated questionnaire comprising 30 questions was distributed to 560 clinical nurses in three comprehensive hospitals of Xiamen, China. The questionnaire covered participants’ demographic characteristics, NGT placement, administration of enteral nutrition (EN), and monitoring or management of feeding intolerance.

Results

A total 464 (82.9%) questionnaires were completed; 36.2% of nurses used nose–ear–xiphoid and 79.5% forehead–xiphoid measurement to define the internal length of the NGT. Many participants still used traditional methods to confirm NGT placement (auscultation of injected air 50.2%, bubble test 34.7% and observing feeding tube aspirate 34.3%). Bolus feeding was the most commonly used technique to administer EN. A total 97.0% of all nurses used syringes to measure gastric residual volume (GRV), and 62.7% measured GRV every 4–8 hours. The most frequently used GRV threshold values were 200 mL (44.6%) and 150 mL (25.2%). Most nurses stopped feeding immediately when encountering high GRV (84.3%) or diarrhea (45.0%). The nasogastric feeding practices of many clinical nurses were not consistent with international guidelines.

Conclusions

Our study can provide an impetus for nursing administrators to revise their nasogastric feeding procedures, to promote compliance with evidence-based guidelines.

Keywords: Nasogastric tube feeding, nurse, evidence-based practice, survey, enteral nutrition, feeding intolerance

Introduction

Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding, defined as the delivery of nutrients through the nasal route into the stomach via a feeding tube,1 is a common procedure for providing nutritional support in patients who are unable to ingest food orally because of health issues2 or for patients whose nutrition intake is insufficient.

Over 790,000 NGTs were delivered by the National Health Service Supply Chain in 2015,3 and approximately 6.6 million patients undergo NGT intubation in China each year.4 Several studies have identified a theory–practice gap among nurses with respect to their practices of NGT placement and management of complications during feeding.5,6 Inappropriate practices, including the inability to confirm the tube location, may cause adverse events, even death. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether nurses have adopted safe practices.

Nasogastric feeding is one of the most common nursing procedures used in clinical settings. The standards extensively used in China in terms of nasogastric feeding are based on the Practice Guideline of Clinical Nursing7 and Basic Nursing.8 The former does not describe the method of NGT placement or the method of confirming the position of the NGT. The latter introduces the method of NGT placement and three traditional methods to confirm the position of the NGT (gastric juice suction, auscultation of injected air, and observation of air bubbles). NGTs are usually inserted blindly by nurses who cannot see where the tube is going as it passes out of sight through the patient’s nose and throat. Thus, the placement and patency of NGTs should be checked before administration of medication or commencement of feeding.9 However, methods used for feeding tube confirmation and the frequency of their usage vary widely.10 Unfortunately, adverse events including pneumonia, pneumothorax, and death are positively correlated with inconsistent nursing practices in the placement of feeding tubes.11 Between September 2011 and March 2016 in the United Kingdom, 95 incidents of NGT misplacement were reported.3 In China, Lu et al.12 studied 30 patients with nasogastric feeding in the neurosurgery department and reported the incidence of diarrhea, vomiting and aspiration, constipation, gastric retention, and gastrointestinal bleeding was 30.0%, 43.3%, 73.3%, 33.3%, and 23.3%, respectively. Liu et al.13 analyzed 85 patients with severe stroke who had hyperglycemia and found that 71.76% had gastric retention. Moreover, in terms of methods for predicting the NGT insertion length, measurements from the nose to the ear lobe to the xiphoid process of the sternum (NEX) or from the forehead to the xiphoid process (FX) frequently appear in nursing textbooks and are taught in nursing schools.8,14 However, Chen et al.15 and Taylor et al.16 have shown that the length using the NEX method was insufficient. Furthermore, it was suggested that the NEX and Hanson’s method should never be used for measuring the NGT length prior to insertion in adults.17 Current research regards the method that takes into account sex (gender), weight, and nose to the umbilicus with an adult’s head resting flat on the bed (GWNUF) as the best available method.14,17

Gastric access for feeding is less invasive than other methods of artificial feeding because the NGT is easy to insert and remove. Nasogastric feeding allows for normal absorption of nutrients, which provides greater versatility in the diet.18 In addition, nasogastric feeding can stimulate the gastric phase of digestion and does not divert from potential sites for the absorption of nutrients.19 Despite the advantages of NGT use, some patients have complications linked to either the enteral access itself or to enteral feeding.20

Several issues related to NGT positioning and techniques (such as feeding access and gastrointestinal intolerance) often interrupt enteral nutrition (EN).21–23 Feeding intolerance (FI) is the primary reason for discontinuing EN.24,25 Gungabissoon et al.26 defined FI as any of the following: large gastric residual volume (GRV), vomiting/emesis, diarrhea, abdominal distension, or subjective discomfort. The prevalence of FI was 30.5% to 38.3% and occurred after a median 3 days from commencement of EN.26–28 GRVs are widely used to assess FI; however, the definition and management of excessive GRV remain controversial.27,29

Clinical nurses are responsible for inserting the NGT, confirming its placement, administering feedings, and monitoring or handling complications. It has been shown that adherence to standardized guidelines via a nurse-led EN feeding procedure (for an early start and timely increase of EN) improves the nutritional intake of patients.30 There is a paucity of studies on whether practices among Chinese nurses are consistent with the current best practices for nasogastric feeding. Hence, it is imperative to investigate whether clinical nurses’ practices are in accordance with evidence-based best practice guidelines so that nursing administrators and clinical nurses can improve nasal feeding for patients. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate Chinese clinical nurses’ current NGT intubation and feeding practices for adults.

Methods

Design

This was a multicenter cross-sectional descriptive study.

Sampling and participants

Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. A sample size of 408 was required based on the following formula31: n = P(1−P)/(E2/Z2+P(1−P)/N), α = 0.05, P = 50%, Z = 1.96, E = 0.05, N≈3000, with 20% of the estimated sample added to offset attrition of the sample.

Registered nurses who met all of the following requirements were included in this study: holding a nursing practice certificate of the People’s Republic of China; working in the wards (where clinical nurses are commonly in charge of enteral nutrition) of three comprehensive tertiary grade A hospitals in Xiamen (Zhongshan Hospital, affiliated to Xiamen University, which has 38 departments and 2000 beds; The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, with 52 departments and 2500 beds; and Xiamen Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which has 32 departments and 1200 beds); and willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria included administrative-level nurses as well as nurses working in the outpatient service, operating room, and emergency department.

Instrument

We used a self-designed Chinese version of a questionnaire, comprising 30 questions and based on clinical practice guidelines and other relevant literature involving NGT intubation and feeding procedures in adults.1,9,32–36 The draft of the questionnaire was revised after review by an expert panel comprising five senior nurses with at least 10 years’ clinical experience. The final version of the questionnaire contained two parts: participants’ demographic characteristics (including department, age, working seniority, sex, educational level, classification, whether a clinical nurse specialist in EN, and frequency of nasogastric feeding); the other part included questions about nasogastric feeding practices, which involved placement of the NGT, EN administration, and management of FI. The expert panel used four-point Likert rating scales (1 = not relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = quite relevant, 4 = highly relevant) to assess the relevance of each item and the research content. The questionnaire is considered reliable, with a scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) of 0.98.

Data collection procedures

Data collection was conducted between February and April 2018, as follows. Researchers went to each department and explained the purpose and scope of this study to the head nurse, to obtain permission for data collection. Then, participants were given a paper-and-pencil questionnaire to complete individually. Nurses returned the completed questionnaire in a sealed envelope to the head nurse of each ward. One week later, researchers collected the questionnaires from the head nurses.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Committee for Medical Ethics of Xiamen Zhongshan Hospital, affiliated to Xiamen University (No: xmzsyy2019033). The survey purpose, benefits, disadvantages, and notes for completing the form were explained to all participants. Participants were considered to have provided their consent by replying to the survey questions.

Data analysis

Descriptive data were used to present the results of nurses’ responses as frequency and percentage. The chi-squared test was applied to examine statistically significant differences in the sample characteristics and nurses’ practices between departments. We considered p value <0.05 as indicating statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS v. 22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Characteristics of participants

Of the 560 questionnaires distributed to participants, 464 (82.9%) were completed and returned. The demographic characteristics of study participants are shown in Table 1. Among participants, 168 (36.2%) were from internal medicine, and 433 (93.3%) were women. In addition, nurses with an undergraduate-level education (324/69.8%), junior nurses (276/9.5%), and nurses who performed nasal feeding every day (218/47.0%) respectively accounted for the largest proportion with respect to education, classification, and frequency of nasogastric feeding.

Table 1.

Characteristics of study participants (N = 464).

NGT intubation and feeding practices

NGT intubation and feeding practices among participants are shown in Table 2. A total 369 (79.5%) nurses chose the FX method to determine the NGT length before catheterization; no nurses adopted the GWNUF method. To confirm the location of the NGT, most nurses regarded traditional methods as the gold standard, namely, auscultation of injected air (233/50.2%), the bubble test (161/34.7%), or observing feeding tube aspirate (159/34.3%); only 125 (26.9%) chose radiography as the gold standard. In addition, 384 (82.8%) nurses observed feeding tube aspirate during the process of blind insertion whereas most nurses observed the external length of the tube to confirm its location when starting nasal feeding. In addition, 431 (92.9%) nurses always marked the exit site of the NGT after verifying its location. For EN management, 417 (89.9%) nurses always raised the backrest of the bed 30° to 45° before nasal feeding. However, only 84 (18.1%) nurses chose intermittent feeding, and nearly half (203/43.8%) chose bolus feeding. More than half of nurses (55.0%) used sterile normal saline as the solution for oral care, and only 36.6% used chlorhexidine. For FI monitoring, only 77 (16.6%) nurses thought that the maximum GRV threshold was 250 mL, and 207 (44.6%) thought it was 200 mL. In the case of high GRV and diarrhea, 391 (84.3%) and 209 (45%) nurses, respectively, chose to discontinue nasal feeding immediately.

Table 2.

Practices of NGT intubation and feeding (N = 464).

Discussion

NGT placement presents an intrinsic risk to patient safety as it is carried out blindly.2 Therefore, it is very important to determine the location of the NGT. Our survey showed that nurses used various methods to check the NGT position. Although several guidelines suggest that radiography is the gold standard for confirming NGT placement,32,36–38 we found that many nurses still regarded auscultation, observation of feeding tube aspirate, or the bubble test as the gold standard. In reality, however, there are many difficulties for clinical nurses in performing radiography. For example, a doctor’s order is needed to perform radiography, and access to an X-ray machine is not always available; in addition, the costs related to radiography are relatively high. Therefore, observing the external length of the tube as well as the three traditional methods above are widely used by Chinese nurses. We found that most (95%) nurses used traditional (but inaccurate) methods in clinical practice, including observing feeding tube aspirate, observing the external tube length, watching for signs of respiratory distress, auscultation, and the bubble test. These findings were consistent with those of previous reports.6,10,39 Unlike in the United Kingdom where pH testing is recommended as the first-line test method,40 this procedure was rarely adopted by the nurses surveyed in our study.

Nearly all (98.5%) nurses used NEX or FX measurement alone or in combination. Current literature recommends the GWNUF method as the most appropriate means of measuring the NGT length prior to insertion in adults.14,17 Nevertheless, no nurses in our study used this method. Most nurses confirmed the NGT location on various occasions, such as during the insertion procedure, before intermittent feeding, and before medication administration, and they always marked the exit site of the NGT after verifying its location. These practices meet the current recommended guidelines.32,36

Our study showed that most participants correctly followed the guidelines for initiation time of feeding, storage of EN formulations, body position placement, and tube flushing. These findings were in line with those of previous studies.6,39 We also found that bolus feeding was the most commonly used form of administering EN. Currently, no form of EN delivery is widely accepted as the best in this field.33,41,42 However, rather than using the recommended chlorhexidine mouthwash,34,43 many clinical nurses used sterile normal saline when providing oral care to critically ill patients.

In the present study, we found that many nurses used syringes to measure GRV every 4 hours, and that the most frequently used GRV threshold values were 150 mL and 200 mL. These findings were partly in accordance with other surveys.6,29 When dealing with high GRV, many participants stopped feeding immediately. According to the 2015 Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for critically ill patients with a GRV between 250 mL and 500 mL (inclusive), frequent examination of residuals every 4 or every 8 hours should be regarded as the best strategy to optimize EN.33 Moreover, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) recommend that GRVs should not be included as part of regular care for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who are receiving EN. If GRVs are used in the ICU, discontinuing EN with GRV <500 mL and no other signs of intolerance should be avoided.34 Hence, the definition and management of excessive GRV remain controversial.

Despite appropriate monitoring and management of FI representing a main task in nursing, it is difficult to quantify the signs of intolerance.29 In the present survey, we found that several participants determined this intolerance based on bowel sounds, which is not a reliable indicator of normal bowel function.29 SCCM and ASPEN support the premise that evidence of bowel function and bowel sounds are not required for initiation of EN.34 When patients developed diarrhea, nearly half of clinical nurses surveyed reported ceasing administration of EN immediately. However, SCCM and ASPEN recommend that EN should not be discontinued based solely on the occurrence of diarrhea; instead, EN should be continued until the etiology of diarrhea is determined and the appropriate treatment(s) administered.34

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that some aspects of nurses’ practices regarding nasogastric feeding were not consistent with international guidelines, which may predispose patients to underfeeding. The practice gaps found in this survey highlight the need to realign nurses with evidence-based best practices. Our survey provides a fundamental reference for interventional and educational programs in this field.

Relevance to clinical practice

Although this survey was conducted in China, NGT-related issues occur in other countries. Our study may serve as an impetus for nursing administrators and clinical nurses to revise their nasogastric feeding procedures to comply with evidence-based guidelines, thereby ensuring the safe and effective management of patients receiving nasogastric feeding.

• Our study findings indicated that some aspects of nurses’ nasogastric feeding practices were inconsistent with the current guidelines, which may predispose patients to underfeeding.

• The theory–practice gaps identified in this study suggest a need to improve the level of nurses’ practices to the required standards.

• Further interventional or educational programs in this field should be conducted based on the fundamental data provided in our study.

Abbreviations

NGT: nasogastric tube

EN: enteral nutrition

NEX: nose–ear–xiphoid

FX: forehead–xiphoid

GRV: gastric residual volume

GWNUF: gender, weight, and nose to umbilicus with the adult’s head flat on the bed

FI: feeding intolerance

S-CVI: scale-level content validity index

SCCM: Society of Critical Care Medicine

ASPEN: American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the help provided by the clinical departments of the three comprehensive tertiary grade A hospitals in Xiamen (The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Xiamen University, and Xiamen Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine) during the data collection.

Author contributions

Study design: Li-chun Xu, Xiao-jin Huang, and Hai-hua Zhu; data collection: Li-chun Xu, Hai-hua Zhu, and Jun-yi Zheng; data analysis: Li-chun Xu and Jun-yi Zheng; and manuscript writing: Li-chun Xu, Bi-xia Lin, and Xiao-jin Huang. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was funded by the Bureau of Science and Technology of Xiamen (Number: 3502Z20134017).

References

2. Chan EY, Ng IH, Tan SL, et al. Nasogastric feeding practices: a survey using clinical scenarios. Int J Nurs Stud 2012; 49: 310–319. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Fan L, Liu Q, Gui L. Efficacy of nonswallow nasogastric tube intubation: a randomised controlled trial. J Clin Nurs 2016; 25: 3326–3332. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Fulbrook P, Bongers A, Albarran JW. A European survey of enteral nutrition practices and procedures in adult intensive care units. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16: 2132–2141. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01841.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Hammad SM, Al-Hussami M, Darawad MW. Jordanian Critical Care Nurses’ Practices Regarding Enteral Nutrition. Gastroenterol Nurs 2015; 38: 279–288. DOI: 10.1097/sga.0000000000000133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Li X, Shang S. Basic nursing. 6th ed Beijing: People’s Health Publishing House, 2017. In Chinese. [Google Scholar]

9. Boullata JI, Carrera AL, Harvey L, et al. ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017; 41: 15–103. DOI: 10.1177/0148607116673053. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Bourgault AM, Heath J, Hooper V, et al. Methods used by critical care nurses to verify feeding tube placement in clinical practice. Crit Care Nurse 2015; 35: e1–e7. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2015984. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Sparks DA, Chase DM, Coughlin LM, et al. Pulmonary complications of 9931 narrow-bore nasoenteric tubes during blind placement: a critical review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011; 35: 625–629. DOI: 10.1177/0148607111413898. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Lu CF, Cui SX, Li DM. Design and Application of Nursing Schedule for Patients with Nasal Feeding in Department of 221 Neurosurgery. Chinese General Practice 2011; 11: 1145–1146. In Chinese. [Google Scholar]

13. Liu F, Wei N. . Analysis on occurred stomach retention of patients with acute severe stroke complicated with high blood glucose. Chinese Nursing Research 2011; 25: 2408–2409. In Chinese. [Google Scholar]

14. Ellett ML, Beckstrand J, Flueckiger J, et al. Predicting the insertion distance for placing gastric tubes. Clin Nurs Res 2005; 14: 11–27; discussion 28–31. DOI: 10.1177/1054773804270919. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Chen YC, Wang LY, Chang YJ, et al. Potential risk of malposition of nasogastric tube using nose-ear-xiphoid measurement. PLoS One 2014; 9: e88046. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088046. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Taylor SJ, Allan K, McWilliam H, et al. Nasogastric tube depth: the ‘NEX’ guideline is incorrect. Br J Nurs 2014; 23: 641–644. DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2014.23.12.641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Santos SC, Woith W, Freitas MI, et al. Methods to determine the internal length of nasogastric feeding tubes: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud 2016; 61: 95–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.06.004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Kozeniecki M, Fritzshall R. Enteral Nutrition for Adults in the Hospital Setting. Nutr Clin Pract 2015; 30: 634–651. DOI: 10.1177/0884533615594012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Schlein K. Gastric Versus Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Adults. Nutr Clin Pract 2016; 31: 514–522. DOI: 10.1177/0884533616629633. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Toussaint E, Van Gossum A, Ballarin A, et al. Enteral access in adults. Clin Nutr 2015; 34: 350–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.10.009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Lee ZY, Ibrahim NA, Mohd-Yusof BN. Prevalence and duration of reasons for enteral nutrition feeding interruption in a tertiary intensive care unit. Nutrition 2018; 53: 26–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2017.11.014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Stewart ML. Interruptions in enteral nutrition delivery in critically ill patients and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care Nurse 2014; 34: 14–21; quiz 22. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2014243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Uozumi M, Sanui M, Komuro T, et al. Interruption of enteral nutrition in the intensive care unit: a single-center survey. J Intensive Care 2017; 5: 52. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-017-0245-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Reintam Blaser A, Starkopf L, Deane AM, et al. Comparison of different definitions of feeding intolerance: a retrospective observational study. Clin Nutr 2015; 34: 956–961. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.10.006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Xiaoyong W, Xuzhao L, Deliang Y, et al. Construction of a model predicting the risk of tube feeding intolerance after gastrectomy for gastric cancer based on 225 cases from a single Chinese center. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 99940–99949. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21966. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Gungabissoon U, Hacquoil K, Bains C, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and treatment of enteral feed intolerance during critical illness. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2015; 39: 441–448. DOI: 10.1177/0148607114526450. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Blaser AR, Starkopf J, Kirsimagi U, et al. Definition, prevalence, and outcome of feeding intolerance in intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2014; 58: 914–922. DOI: 10.1111/aas.12302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Wang K, McIlroy K, Plank LD, et al. Prevalence, Outcomes, and Management of Enteral Tube Feeding Intolerance: a Retrospective Cohort Study in a Tertiary Center. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2017; 41: 959–967. DOI: 10.1177/0148607115627142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Metheny NA, Mills AC, Stewart BJ. Monitoring for intolerance to gastric tube feedings: a national survey. Am J Crit Care 2012; 21: e33–e40. DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2012647. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Orinovsky I, Raizman E. Improvement of Nutritional Intake in Intensive Care Unit Patients via a Nurse-Led Enteral Nutrition Feeding Protocol. Crit Care Nurse 2018; 38: 38–44. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2018433. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Feng SY, Zhou GH. Sampling survey theory and method. 2nd ed. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2012, p.67. [Google Scholar]

32. Bankhead R, Boullata J, Brantley S, et al. Enteral Nutrition Practice Recommendations. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2009; 33: 122–167. DOI: 10.1177/0148607108330314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2016; 40: 159–211. DOI: 10.1177/0148607115621863. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Hu YQ, Cheng Y, Wang YY, et al. Development of clinical practice guideline for nasogastric tube feeding in adult patients. Chinese 270 Journal of Nursing 2016; 51: 133–141. In Chinese. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2016.02.001. [Google Scholar]

38. Metheny N. Initial and Ongoing Verification of Feeding Tube Placement in Adults. Crit Care Nurse 2016; 36: e8–e13. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2016141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Phillips NM, Endacott R. Medication administration via enteral tubes: a survey of nurses’ practices. J Adv Nurs 2011; 67: 2586–2592. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05688.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Aguilera-Martinez R, Ramis-Ortega E, Carratalá-Munuera C, et al. Effectiveness of continuous enteral nutrition versus intermittent enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2014; 12: 281–317. DOI: 10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1129. [Google Scholar]

42. Nasiri M, Farsi Z, Ahangari M, et al. Comparison of Intermittent and Bolus Enteral Feeding Methods on Enteral Feeding Intolerance of Patients with Sepsis: a Triple-blind Controlled Trial in Intensive Care Units. Middle East J Dig Dis 2017; 9: 218–227. DOI: 10.15171/mejdd.2017.77. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Hua F, Xie H, Worthington HV, et al. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 10: Cd008367. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of International Medical Research are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications