Reducing the Unintended Dislodgement of Gastrostomy Tubes in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital: A QA/QI Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since their introduction in 1980, gastrostomy tubes have become effective means of providing both short-term and long-term enteral access and nutritional support. These feeding tubes are ubiquitous in many health care facilities that care for the elderly, but carry high rates of unintended dislodgement - a complication that, if not detected promptly, is associated with substantial morbidity and health care costs. This study determined the dislodgment rate of gastrostomy tubes at 90 days in a cohort of 221 patients and tested the hypothesis that the implementation of a concise protocol to care for patients' gastrostomy tubes would reduce these unintended dislodgements. METHODS: The dislodgment rate of gastrostomy tubes at 90 days in a cohort of 221 patients was determined. In addition, a randomized controlled trial was conducted in a long-term acute care hospital in which patients were alternately allocated to either of two geographically separate units: 1) a selected unit where a concise protocol to care for patients' gastrostomy tubes was implemented, and 2) a separate unit where standard care was provided. Enrollment included patients diagnosed with dysphagia - who were receiving mechanical ventilatory support for chronic respiratory failure - who were being administered feedings, fluids and medications via a balloon gastrostomy tube. The primary endpoint was the number of unintended dislodgements of gastrostomy tubes during a 90-day study period. RESULTS: In a cohort of 221 patients with balloon gastrostomy tubes placed that was observed for a period of 90 days, 64 (29.0%) had unintended gastrostomy tube dislodgement (P < 0.028). A total of 34 patients were enrolled in the randomized controlled trial with 17 in the treatment group and 17 in the control group. All subjects were followed for a maximum of 90 days. During the study period, there was one episode of unintended gastrostomy tube dislodgement (5.9%) in the treatment group, compared with six episodes (35.3%) in the control group (P < 0.047) and the previous cohort of 221 patients (P < 0.028). CONCLUSION: This study showed a significant reduction in dislodgements after implementation of a protocol that is an innovative, straightforward and economical solution to the problem of the unintended dislodgement of gastrostomy tubes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".