4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Parenteral nutrition safe practices: Results of the 2003 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 259-265

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607106030003259

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) recently published a revision of its Safe Practices for Parenteral Nutrition guidelines. Because there is a paucity of published scientific evidence to support good practices related to ordering, compounding, and administering parenteral nutrition (PN), a survey was performed in the process of the revision to gain insight into the discrepancies between reported practices and previous guidelines. Methods: A web-based survey consisting of 45 questions was conducted (n = 651) June 1-30, 2003. Respondents were queried about primary practice setting, professional background, processes for writing PN orders, computer order entry of PN orders, problems with P-N orders, and adverse events related to PN. Results: There were 651 survey responses, 90% of which were from hospital-based practitioners. Almost 75% of responders processed between 0 and 20 PN orders per day. Overall, physicians (78%) were responsible for writing PN orders, but dietitians and pharmacists had significant involvement. PN base components were most often ordered as percentage final concentration after admixture (eg, 20% dextrose), which is inconsistent with safe practice guidelines of ordering by total amount per day (eg, 200 g/day). There was no consistent method for ordering PN electrolytes. Approximately 45% of responders reported adverse events directly related to PN that required intervention. Of these events, 25% caused temporary or permanent harm, and 4.8% resulted in a near-death event or death. Conclusions: Although the survey found consistency in PN practices for many areas queried, significant variation exists in the manner by which PN is ordered and labeled.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据