Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 4089–4097 | Cite as

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

  • Theresa A. FesslerEmail author
  • Timothy B. Short
  • Kate F. Willcutts
  • Robert G. Sawyer
Article

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.

Keywords

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) Enteral nutrition Decision making Stroke Advanced dementia End of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

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

Supplementary material

464_2019_6711_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 KB)
464_2019_6711_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 KB)
464_2019_6711_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 14 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Moran C, Mahoney S (2015) When is feeding via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy indicated? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 31:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Westaby D, Young A, O’Toole P, Smith G, Sanders DS (2010) The provision of a percutaneously placed enteral tube feeding service. Gut 59:1592–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 62:1590–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 29:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 47:1105–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 6:885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 7:79–85Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Modi SC, Whetsone LM, Cummings DM (2007) Influence of patient and physician characteristics on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube decision-making. J Palliat Med 10:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 33:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 44:870–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 365:764–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 48:420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 25:2694–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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 44:188–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 94:3225–3228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 22:302–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 59:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanson LC, Garrett JM, Lewis C, Phifer N, Jackman A, Carey TS (2008) Physicians’ expectations of benefit from tube feeding. J Palliat Med 11:1130–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 45:648–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 11:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 14:1017–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carmel S (1999) Life sustaining treatments: what doctors do, what they want for themselves and what elderly persons want. Soc Sci Med 49:1401–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 17:487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 12:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 25:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 15:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scott LD (2005) The PEG “Consult” Ethics in Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 100:740–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nutrition ServicesUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Morrison HealthcareUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Palliative CareUniversity of Virginia Heath SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations