Open AccessThe Current Status of Enteral Feeding Management in General Surgical Ward
Author(s) -
Yun Jung Kim,
Young Mee Baek,
So Yun Kim,
Mi Reu Moon,
KyungHee Park,
So Hee Paeck,
Moon Young Seo,
Sook Young Oh,
Eun Ji Lee,
Hyun Bin Lim,
Ji Ye Hwang,
In Sun Chung,
Jae Gil Lee,
Kyung Sik Kim,
Chong Bai Kim
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of clinical nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2383-7101
pISSN - 2289-0203
DOI - 10.15747/jcn.2015.7.1.23
Subject(s) - enteral administration , medicine , theology , gynecology , zoology , parenteral nutrition , philosophy , biology
stomach 56%, jejunum 39%, duodenum 3%, and undescribed 2%. The methods of enteral feeding were as follows; continuous feeding 19%, cyclic feeding 75%, intermittent and bolus feeding 3%, respectively. Only 1% of patients were on flushing and 16% on stomach residual. The most common complication of enteral feeding was clogging of the tube (5%). Conclusion: Due to the lack of detailed charting related to enteral feeding, we were unable to analyze the statistics on the relevance of complication which was the primary endpoint. As a result, development of a standardized protocol on charting enteral feeding is suggested for optimal enteral nutritional support.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom