Type of attending physician influenced feeding tube insertions for hospitalized elderly people with severe dementia.

Striking variation has been documented in the rates of feeding tube insertion for hospitalized patients with advanced dementia. This occurs despite the harms of the procedure, which may outweigh its benefits, and the procedure's inconsistency with care focused on the patient's comfort. Among nursing home residents with advanced dementia who were hospitalized in 2001-10 with an infection or dehydration, we found that rates of insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube varied by type of attending physician. Insertion rates were markedly lower when all of a patient's attending physicians were hospitalists (1.6 percent) or nonhospitalist generalists (2.2 percent), compared to all subspecialists (11.0 percent) or a mixture of physicians by type, which typically included a subspecialist (15.6 percent). The portion of patients seen by a mixture of attending physicians increased from 28.9 percent in 2001 to 38.3 percent in 2010. Efforts to improve decision making in the care of patients with advanced dementia should include interventions to improve communication among physicians and the education of subspecialists about the merits of using feeding tubes with this population.

Feeding tubes and the prevention or healing of pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding the use of feeding tubes in persons with advanced dementia to prevent or heal pressure ulcers is conflicting. Using national data, we set out to determine whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes prevent or help heal pressure ulcers in nursing home (NH) residents with advanced cognitive impairment (ACI). METHODS: A propensity-matched cohort study of NH residents with ACI and recent need for assistance in eating was conducted by matching each NH resident who had a feeding tube inserted during a hospitalization to 3 without a PEG tube inserted. Using the Minimum Data Set (MDS), we examined 2 outcomes: first, whether residents without a pressure ulcer developed a stage 2 or higher pressure ulcer (n = 1124 with PEG insertion); and second, whether NH residents with a pressure ulcer (n = 461) experienced improvement of the pressure ulcer by their first posthospitalization MDS assessment (mean [SD] time between evaluations, 24.6 [32.7] days). RESULTS: Matched residents with and without a PEG insertion showed comparable sociodemographic characteristic, rates of feeding tube risk factors, and mortality. Adjusted for risk factors, hospitalized NH residents receiving a PEG tube were 2.27 times more likely to develop a new pressure ulcer (95% CI, 1.95-2.65). Conversely, those with a pressure ulcer were less likely to have the ulcer heal when they had a PEG tube inserted (OR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.89]). CONCLUSIONS: Feeding tubes are not associated with prevention or improved healing of a pressure ulcer. Rather, our findings suggest that the use of PEG tube is associated with increased risk of pressure ulcers among NH residents with ACI.