Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
P280 A review of local percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy data (including waiting times, indications and complication rates) in comparison to national guidance
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
P280 A review of local percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy data (including waiting times, indications and complication rates) in comparison to national guidance
Do you wish to request the book?
P280 A review of local percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy data (including waiting times, indications and complication rates) in comparison to national guidance
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
P280 A review of local percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy data (including waiting times, indications and complication rates) in comparison to national guidance
2024
Overview
IntroductionPercutaneous Endoscopy Gastrostomy (PEG), used as a long term feeding conduit, should be provided by every endoscopic unit along with related basic procedures.1 Its primary indication is to help patients meet their metabolic requirements who have inadequate oral intake. Last national guidance in 2010 by the British Society of Gastroenterology reviews indications, common complications and outlines a generic referral pathway.AimsWe aimed to audit local (an east London District General Hospital) PEG related procedures in contest to recommendations from the BSG, 2010 PEG evaluation and to review any sparsity of guidance.Methods21 patient case files (total PEG procedures from October 22-November 23) were reviewed with particular focus on: indications, waiting times, complications, 1 year mortality.ResultsIndications aligned with those in the BSG guidance however with a lack of clear pre-procedure MDT documentation. Waiting times averaged 24 days (inpatient), 85 days (outpatient) with nil clear national targets to aim for. No complications were encountered, with 1 year mortality post procedure at 5%.ConclusionLocal data is in keeping with national recommendations. However, there is lack of guidance on target wait times for PEG related procedures. There is also minimal usage of key performance indicators when deciding upon appropriate patients for PEGs, especially in the geriatric population, such as Clinical Frailty Score which is now routinely used in pre-operative general surgery cases.2ReferencesWestaby D. (2010) The provision of a percutaneously placed enteral tube feeding service.Mendiratta P. (2023) Clinical frailty scale - statpearls - NCBI bookshelf, Clinical Frailty Scale. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559009/(Accessed: 29 January 2024).
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.