Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques: A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs

Beth Lyman, Maria Williams, Janet Sollazzo, Ashley Hayden, Pam Hensley, Hongying Dai, Cristine Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. Methods: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. Results: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7%. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4% vs 10.3%, P =.63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4%, P =.002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) (P <.0001). Conclusions: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-200
Number of pages8
JournalNutrition in Clinical Practice
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Enteral Nutrition
Nursing
Costs and Cost Analysis
Growth
Refrigeration
Nutrition Therapy
Pediatrics
Temperature
Water

Keywords

  • bacteria
  • enteral nutrition
  • food safety
  • infection control
  • pediatrics
  • safety
  • tube feeding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques : A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs. / Lyman, Beth; Williams, Maria; Sollazzo, Janet; Hayden, Ashley; Hensley, Pam; Dai, Hongying; Roberts, Cristine.

In: Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 32, No. 2, 01.04.2017, p. 193-200.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lyman, Beth ; Williams, Maria ; Sollazzo, Janet ; Hayden, Ashley ; Hensley, Pam ; Dai, Hongying ; Roberts, Cristine. / Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques : A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs. In: Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2017 ; Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 193-200.
@article{b71acdafbc784bf382e81d4abbbd82f9,
title = "Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques: A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs",
abstract = "Background: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. Methods: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. Results: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7{\%}. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4{\%} vs 10.3{\%}, P =.63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4{\%}, P =.002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) (P <.0001). Conclusions: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.",
keywords = "bacteria, enteral nutrition, food safety, infection control, pediatrics, safety, tube feeding",
author = "Beth Lyman and Maria Williams and Janet Sollazzo and Ashley Hayden and Pam Hensley and Hongying Dai and Cristine Roberts",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0884533616680840",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "193--200",
journal = "Nutrition in Clinical Practice",
issn = "0884-5336",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enteral Feeding Set Handling Techniques

T2 - A Comparison of Bacterial Growth, Nursing Time, Labor, and Material Costs

AU - Lyman, Beth

AU - Williams, Maria

AU - Sollazzo, Janet

AU - Hayden, Ashley

AU - Hensley, Pam

AU - Dai, Hongying

AU - Roberts, Cristine

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Background: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. Methods: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. Results: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7%. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4% vs 10.3%, P =.63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4%, P =.002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) (P <.0001). Conclusions: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.

AB - Background: Enteral nutrition therapy is common practice in pediatric clinical settings. Often patients will receive a pump-assisted bolus feeding over 30 minutes several times per day using the same enteral feeding set (EFS). This study aims to determine the safest and most efficacious way to handle the EFS between feedings. Methods: Three EFS handling techniques were compared through simulation for bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs: (1) rinsing the EFS with sterile water after each feeding, (2) refrigerating the EFS between feedings, and (3) using a ready-to-hang (RTH) product maintained at room temperature. Cultures were obtained at baseline, hour 12, and hour 21 of the 24-hour cycle. A time-in-motion analysis was conducted and reported in average number of seconds to complete each procedure. Supply costs were inventoried for 1 month comparing the actual usage to our estimated usage. Results: Of 1080 cultures obtained, the overall bacterial growth rate was 8.7%. The rinse and refrigeration techniques displayed similar bacterial growth (11.4% vs 10.3%, P =.63). The RTH technique displayed the least bacterial growth of any method (4.4%, P =.002). The time analysis in minutes showed the rinse method was the most time-consuming (44.8 ± 2.7) vs refrigeration (35.8 ± 2.6) and RTH (31.08 ± 0.6) (P <.0001). Conclusions: All 3 EFS handling techniques displayed low bacterial growth. RTH was superior in bacterial growth, nursing time, and supply costs. Since not all pediatric formulas are available in RTH, we conclude that refrigerating the EFS between uses is the next most efficacious method for handling the EFS between bolus feeds.

KW - bacteria

KW - enteral nutrition

KW - food safety

KW - infection control

KW - pediatrics

KW - safety

KW - tube feeding

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018331319&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018331319&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0884533616680840

DO - 10.1177/0884533616680840

M3 - Article

C2 - 28362574

AN - SCOPUS:85018331319

VL - 32

SP - 193

EP - 200

JO - Nutrition in Clinical Practice

JF - Nutrition in Clinical Practice

SN - 0884-5336

IS - 2

ER -