4.1 Article

Physicians' Expectations of Benefit from Tube Feeding

Journal

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages 1130-1134

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2008.0033

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Nursing Research [R01 NR05018, R01 NR009826]
  2. The Duke Endowment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Tube feeding is increasingly common, despite evidence for limited medical benefits. We interviewed treating physicians to describe their expectation of benefit for patients receiving a new feeding tube, and to determine whether expected benefits vary by patient characteristics. Methods: We recruited treating physicians and surrogate decision-makers for 288 hospitalized patients in a prospective study of new feeding tube decisions. In structured interviews, physicians provided information on patients' diagnosis and whether they expected any of eight potential medical benefits for a specific patient; surrogates provided information about the patients' function, race, age, prior residence, and ability to eat by mouth. Results: We completed interviews with 173 physicians about tube feeding for 280 patients (response rate, 97%). Patients commonly had acute stroke (30%), neurodegenerative disease (16%), or head and neck cancer (22%); 70% were somewhat or severely malnourished. In half or more cases, physicians expected benefits of improved nutrition (93%), hydration (60%), prolonged life (58%), ease providing medication (55%), and less aspiration risk (49%). Physicians endorsed more expected benefits for patients with stroke or those completely unable to eat by mouth (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Treating physicians expected multiple medical benefits for a diverse population of patients receiving feeding tubes. Physicians may be unaware of evidence, or expect more optimistic outcomes for their specific patient population. Further education and decision support may improve evidence-based decision-making about feeding tubes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available