IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i19-20p2897-2906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limited PEG tube use: the experience of long‐term care directions

Author

Listed:
  • Lily Yeh
  • Li‐Hua Lo
  • Susan Fetzer
  • Ching‐Huey Chen

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To describe long‐term care nursing directors’ experiences with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy to understand the limited use of it in Taiwanese long‐term care facilities. Background. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, used in Western countries since 1980, have not been readily used in Taiwanese long‐term care facilities since their introduction in 1995. Instead, nasogastric tubes are used for extended periods. The reasons for limited percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use among long‐term care residents are unknown. Design. A phenomenologic qualitative design using in‐depth semi‐structured interviews collected the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use experiences of directors of long‐term care facilities. The directors also provided descriptive data on the prevalence of feeding tubes among their residents. Methods. Eight directors of long‐term care facilities in southern Taiwan participated in tape‐recorded interviews. Data were thematically analysed using the methods of Strauss and Corbin. Feeding tube prevalence data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results. Four themes emerged as contributing to limited percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use in long‐term care facilities: acceptability, availability, affordability and accountability. Over one‐third of the residents required feeding tubes with 97% of those having nasogastric tube. Nasogastric tubes were used for a year or more in over half of the patients requiring enteral feeding. Conclusion. Chinese cultural values play a significant role in influencing end‐of‐life care and decisions about percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use. Nursing directors in long‐term care assume a gatekeeper role to promote acceptability, provide availability and ensure accountability of nutritional interventions. Policy makers must be engaged to promote the affordability of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy use among long‐term care residents. Relevance to clinical practice. To improve nutritional outcomes among long‐term care residents, nurses must acknowledge the Chinese culture related to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. Professionals must provide sufficient information about the advantages of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes and discuss with families the meaning of quality of life and suffering at the end‐of‐life.

Suggested Citation

  • Lily Yeh & Li‐Hua Lo & Susan Fetzer & Ching‐Huey Chen, 2010. "Limited PEG tube use: the experience of long‐term care directions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2897-2906, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:19-20:p:2897-2906
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03157.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03157.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03157.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shin Yuh Ang & Mei Ling Lim & Xin Ping Ng & Madeleine Lam & Mei Mei Chan & Violeta Lopez & Siew Hoon Lim, 2019. "Patients and home carers' experience and perceptions of different modalities of enteral feeding," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3149-3157, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:19-20:p:2897-2906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.