Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Physician opinions on decision making for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube placement

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous endoscopically placed gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are useful for long-term enteral nutrition; however, they are associated with lack of benefit for patients with advanced dementia, at end of life, and for some stroke patients with early regain of swallowing function. We surveyed physician opinions on decision making with the aim to identify factors that can lead to inappropriate PEG placement, as a first step of a quality improvement initiative to prevent inappropriate PEG placements at our facility.

Methods

A survey was distributed to 231 physicians, with questions about discussion topics, contraindications, responsibilities, and practices in decision making for PEG placement. Five-point Likert scales were used for most responses.

Results

Of 62 respondents, the majority were general surgeons (51.6%) and neurologists (30.6%). Levels of agreement were very low that PEG placement is contraindicated in advanced dementia (> 56% disagreed) and at end of life (55% disagreed) with scores of 2.4 and 2.5 (out of 5), respectively. Agreement level was low (score of 2.85) for delaying PEG for stroke patients by at least 2 weeks. Agreement was high for the discussion topics, for allowing 1–7 days for processing information, and for consulting the nutrition service. Over 98% of respondents chose primary team and 58% chose both primary and endoscopy teams as being responsible for discussions with patients and care partners in the decision-making process.

Conclusions

Greater awareness is needed of the lack of benefit of PEG feeding in advanced dementia, at end of life, and for some stroke patients with early regain of swallow function. Disagreement exists as to whether the primary team and endoscopist share in the responsibility for discussions in decision making for PEG placement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moran C, Mahoney S (2015) When is feeding via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy indicated? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 31:137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Westaby D, Young A, O’Toole P, Smith G, Sanders DS (2010) The provision of a percutaneously placed enteral tube feeding service. Gut 59:1592–1605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kenny N, Singh SA (2015) Decision making for enteral nutrition in adult patients with dysphagia—a guide for health care professionals. In: Seminars in dysphagia. Chap 8. https://doi.org/10.5772/60987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American geriatrics society ethics committee and clinical practice and models of care committee (2014) American geriatrics society feeding tubes in advanced dementia position statement. J Am Geriatr Soc 62:1590–1593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baird Schwarz D, Barrocas A, Wesley JR, Kliger G, Pontes-Arruda A, Arenas Marquez H, Lembo James R, Monturo C, Lysen LK, DiTucci A (2014) Gastrostomy tube placement in patients with advanced dementia or near end of life. Nutr Clin Pract 29:829–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Callahan CM, Haag KM, Buchanan NN, Nisi R (1999) Decision-Making for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:1105–1109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shega JW, Hougham GW, Stocking CB, Cox-Hayley D, Sachs GA (2003) Barriers to limiting the practice of feeding tube placement in advanced dementia. J Palliat Med 6:885–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vitale CA, Hiner T, Ury WA, Berkman CS, Ahronheim JC (2006) Tube feeding in advanced dementia. An exploratory survey of physician knowledge. Case Manag J 7:79–85

    Google Scholar 

  9. Modi SC, Whetsone LM, Cummings DM (2007) Influence of patient and physician characteristics on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube decision-making. J Palliat Med 10:359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Teno J, Meltzer DO, Mitchell SL, Fulton AT, Gozalo P, Mor V (2014) Type of attending physician influenced feeding tube insertions for hospitalized elderly people with severe dementia. Health Aff 33:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jauch EC, Saver JL. Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, Khatri P, McMullan PW, Qureshi AI, Rosenfield K, Scott PA, Summers DR, Wang DZ, Wintermark M, Yonas H (2013) Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association / American Stroke Association. Stroke 44:870–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wirth R, Smoliner C, Jäger M, Warneck T, Leischker AH, Dziewas R, the DGEM Steering Committee (2013) Guideline clinical nutrition in patients with stroke. Exp Transl Stroke Med 5: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2040-7378-5-14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The FOOD Trial Collaboration (2005) Effect of timing and method of enteral tube feeding for dysphagic stroke patients (FOOD): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet 365:764–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, Adeoye OM, Bambakidis NC, Becker K, Biller J, Brown M, Demaerschalk BM, Hoh B, Jauch EC, Kidwell CS, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Ovbiagele B, Scott PA, Sheth KN, Southerland AM, Summers DV, Tirschwell DL (2018) 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke. A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association / American Stroke Association. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. George BP, Kelly AG, Albert GP, Hwang DY, Holloway RG (2017) Timing of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for acute ischemic stroke. An observational study from the U.S. nationwide inpatient sample. Stroke 48:420–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilmskoetter J, Simpson AN, Simpson KN, Bonilha HS (2016) Practice patterns of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in acute stroke: are the guidelines achievable? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 25:2694–2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Royal College of Physicians and British Society of Gastroenterology (2010) Oral feeding difficulties and dilemmas: a guide to practical care, particularly towards the end of life. Royal College of Physicians, London. http://bit.ly/1H4DZcc, https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/oral-feeding-difficulties-and-dilemmas/. Accessed 8 Aug 2018

  18. Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, Danis M, White DB (2016) Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement. Crit Care Med 44:188–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Rosendaal GMA, Verhoef MJ, Kinsella TD (1999) How are decisions made about the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for long term nutritional support? Am J Gastroenterol 94:3225–3228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brotherton A, Abbott J (2009) Clinical decision making and the provision of information in PEG feeding: an exploration of patients and their carers’ perceptions. J Hum Nutr Diet 22:302–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Teno JM, Mitchell SL, Kuo SK, Gozalo PL, Rhodes RL, Lima JC, Mor V (2011) Decision-making and outcomes of feeding tube insertion: a five state study. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:881–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanson LC, Garrett JM, Lewis C, Phifer N, Jackman A, Carey TS (2008) Physicians’ expectations of benefit from tube feeding. J Palliat Med 11:1130–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Holt DQ, McDonald JF, Murray ML, Hair C, Devonshire A, Strauss BJ, Moore JT (2015) Clinical selection criteria can predict futile intervention in patients referred for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion. Internal Med J 45:648–652

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Skitt LC, Hurley JJ, Turner JK, Green AJ, Pinch N, Dolwani S, Swift GL, Green JT (2011) Helping the general physician to improve outcomes after PEG insertion: how we changed our practice. Clin Med 11:132–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell ML, Dove-Meadows E, Walch J, Sanna-Gouin K, Colomba S (2011) The impact of a multidisciplinary educational intervention to reduce PEG tube placement in patients with terminal-stage dementia: a translation of research into practice. J Palliat Med 14:1017–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carmel S (1999) Life sustaining treatments: what doctors do, what they want for themselves and what elderly persons want. Soc Sci Med 49:1401–1408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pengo V, Zurlo A, Voci A, Valentini E, De Zaiacomo F, Catarini M, Iasevoli M, Maggi S, Pegoraro R, Manzato E, Giantin V (2017) Advanced dementia: opinions of physicians and nurses about antibiotic therapy, artificial hydration and nutrition in patients with different life expectancies. Geriatr Gerontol Int 17:487–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Aita K, Takahashi M, Miyata H, Kai I, Finucane T (2007) Physicians’ attitudes about artificial feeding in older patients with severe cognitive impairment in Japan: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-7-22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ogita M, Utsunomiya H, Akishita M, Arai H (2012) Indications and practice for tube feeding in Japanese geriatricians: implications of multidisciplinary team approach. Geriatr Gerontol 12:643–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Buiting HM, Clayton JM, Butow PN, van Delden JJM, van der Heide A (2011) Artificial nutrition and hydration for patients with advanced dementia: perspectives from medical practitioners in the Netherlands and Australia. Palliat Med 25:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Komiya K, Ishii H, Teramoto S, Yasuda T, Sato S, Yamamoto H, Kimura H, Takahashi O, Hiramatsu K, Kadota J (2012) Medical professionals’ attitudes toward tube feeding for themselves or their families: a multicenter survey in Japan. J Palliat Med 15:561–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Scott LD (2005) The PEG “Consult” Ethics in Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 100:740–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alzheimer’s Association Board of Directors (2011) Alzheimer’s Association Assisted oral feeding and tube feeding. http://mythoughtsondementia.com/Pamplets/Assisted_Oral_Tube_Feeding.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

Nancy Kechner, PhD, Liaison for Biology and Biomedical Engineering at University of Virginia, provided statistical analysis of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutrition Services, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    Theresa A. Fessler & Kate F. Willcutts

  2. Morrison Healthcare, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    Theresa A. Fessler

  3. Department of Palliative Care, University of Virginia Heath System, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    Timothy B. Short

  4. Department of Surgery, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    Robert G. Sawyer

Authors
  1. Theresa A. Fessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy B. Short
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kate F. Willcutts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert G. Sawyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theresa A. Fessler.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Theresa Fessler and Drs Timothy Short, Kate Willcutts, and Robert Sawyer have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fessler, T.A., Short, T.B., Willcutts, K.F. et al. Physician opinions on decision making for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube placement. Surg Endosc 33, 4089–4097 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06711-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06711-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation