Apr 2, 2021 | Tuesday Tube Facts
Did you know…?
Patients with malnutrition had 3 times greater length of stay and costs than patients who did not have a malnutrition diagnosis.[1]
References:
- Corkins, M., Guenter, P., DiMario-Ghalili, R., Jensen, G., Malone, A., Miller, S., Patel, V., Plogsted, S., Resnick, H. Malnutrition Diagnoses in Hospitalized Patients. Journal of Pareneteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2014. 38(2): 186-195.
Mar 29, 2021 | Tuesday Tube Facts
Did you know…?
Feeding tubes clog as often as 35% of the time.[1]
The average feeding interruption per patient is more than 5 hours per day in critically ill adults.[2]
References:
- Dandeles, L. and Lodolee, A. Efficacy of Agents to Prevent and Treat Enteral Feeding Tube Clogs. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2011. 45:676-680.
- Stewart, M.L. Interruptions in Enteral Nutrition Delivery in Critically Ill Patients and Recommendations for Clinical Practice. Critical Care Nurse. 2014. 34(4):14-22.
Oct 8, 2019 | Tuesday Tube Facts
Enteral nutrition (EN) has almost completely replaced parenteral nutrition (PN) in burn patients.*
EN is safe, cost effective, and has many clinical advantages over PN for delivering vital nutrition to severely burned patients.*
* Clark, A., Imran, J., Madni, T., Wolf, S. Nutrition and metabolism in burn patients. Burns & Trauma. 2017. 5:11
Aug 27, 2019 | Tuesday Tube Facts
13.4% of patients who were diagnosed as malnourished received either parenteral or enteral nutrition during their hospital stay.[1]
Enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition because it is cheaper and has a lower risk of complications (especially infection).[2]
1. Corkins, M., Guenter,
P., DiMario-Ghalili, R., Jensen, G., Malone, A., Miller, S., Patel, V.,
Plogsted, S., Resnick, H. Malnutrition Diagnoses in Hospitalized
Patients. Journal of Pareneteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2014; 38(2):
186-195.
2. Hyeda A, Costa ÉSMD.
Economic analysis of costs with enteral and parenteral nutritional
therapy according to disease and outcome. Einstein (Sao Paulo).
2017;15(2):192–199. doi:10.1590/S1679-45082017GS4002.
Recent Comments