4.3 Article

Oral Care May Reduce Pneumonia in the Tube-fed Elderly: A Preliminary Study

Journal

DYSPHAGIA
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 616-621

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00455-014-9553-6

Keywords

Oral hygiene; Oral care; Pneumonia; Enteral nutrition; Tube-fed patients; Deglutition; Deglutition disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pneumonia is one of the most important diseases in terms of mortality in the elderly. In particular, bedridden patients who are forbidden oral ingestion during enteral nutrition may have a poor outcome resulting from a respiratory infection. Oral hygiene can play a positive role in preventing aspiration pneumonia in the elderly. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of oral hygiene for bedridden and tube-fed patients at an increased risk of pneumonia. This retrospective study was conducted from July 2011 to June 2013 on a long-term-care hospital unit. The oral care protocol (OCP) intervention commenced in July 2012, during the study period. The subjects of this study were 63 elderly patients with a mean age of 81.7 years. Thirty-one patients were enrolled in the OCP intervention group, and the mean observation length was 130.4 days; the mean observation length for the 32 patients in the control group was 128.4 days. The incidence of pneumonia and the numbers of days with a recorded fever, antibiotics administration, blood tests, and radiological examinations were reduced from 1.20 to 0.45, 24.57 to 17.48, 25.52 to 10.12, 10.91 to 6.54, and 6.33 to 3.09 %, respectively. These reductions were significantly less in the OCP intervention group. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that daily oral care for tube-fed patients who do not receive nutrition by mouth reduced the incidence of pneumonia. In addition to patients consuming food by mouth, all tube-fed patients require dedicated oral care to maintain healthy oral conditions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available