• Atsushi Sorita, Charat Thongprayoon, John T Ratelle, Ruth E Bates, Katie M Rieck, Aditya P Devalapalli, Adil Ahmed, and Deanne T Kashiwagi.
• Division of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
• J Hosp Med. 2017 Jan 1; 12 (1): 36-39.

AbstractWhile many hospitalized patients have orders to fast in preparation for interventions, the extent to which these orders are necessary or adhere to evidence-based durations is unknown. In this study, we analyzed the length, indication, and associated outcomes of nil per os (NPO) orders for general medicine patients at an academic institution in the United States, and compared them to the best available evidence for recommended length of NPO. Of 924 NPO orders assessed, the indicated intervention was not performed for 183 (19.8%) orders, largely due to a change in plan (75/183, 41.0%) or scheduling barriers (43/183, 23.5%). When analyzed by indication, the median duration of NPO orders ranged from 8.3 hours for kidney ultrasound to 13.9 hours for upper endoscopy. For some indications, the literature suggested NPO orders may be unnecessary. Furthermore, in indications for which NPO was deemed necessary in the literature, the duration of most NPO orders was much longer than minimally required. These results suggest the need for establishing more robust practice guidelines or institutional protocols for NPO orders. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:36-39.© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine.

11 keywords...

hide…