• Katie VanDerhoef, Chantel Proudford, Ilounose Amoni, Czarina Jimenez, Jonathon Strutt, Bradley Segura, Jennifer Zaremba, and Jeffrey P Louie.
• From the University of Minnesota, Department of Pediatrics, MHealth Fairview Masonic Children's Hospital, Minneapolis, MN.
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2023 Jun 1; 39 (6): 428431428-431.

AimTo review the outcomes of a nurse-only guideline for replacement of gastrostomy tubes (g-tubes) in a pediatric emergency department (ED) and compare rates of success, failure, length of stay (LOS), and return visits with that of ED physicians.DesignNursing g-tube guidelines, created by a nurse educator and nursing council, were instigated on January 31, 2018. Variables examined included LOS, age at visit, return visit within 72 hours, reason for replacement, and any postplacement complications.Review MethodsData of g-tube placement by nurses and physicians were compared using t test or χ 2 analysis (IBM-SPSS version 20, New Orchard Road, Armonk, NY). The institutional review board determined the study to be exempt from human subjects. The STROBE checklist was used and completed accordingly.Data SourcesChart abstraction and data were collected from January 1, 2011 through April 13, 2020, and medical records were obtained using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for g-tubes: Z93.1, K94.23.ResultsA total of 110 patients were included in our study. Fifty-eight underwent nursing-only replacements; 52 were replaced by physicians. Nurse replacement success rate was 98.3% with an average stay of 22 minutes. Physician success rate was 100% with an average stay of 86 minutes. The difference between nursing and physician LOS was 64.6 minutes. No patient in either group experienced postreplacement complications.ConclusionsThe initiation of nurse-only management of dislodged g-tubes was successful, safe, and had a shorter LOS when compared with physicians in the pediatric ED.ImpactOur study determined the implications of nurse-only replacement of g-tubes in a pediatric ED. We found that nurses replacing g-tubes was equally safe and effective as physician counterparts. In addition, we found that it significantly reduced the LOS for patients, which has consequences on patient satisfaction and billing.Patient/Public ContributionNursing staff were trained in g-tube replacement using guidelines created by a nurse educator and nursing council. Patients either had their dislodged g-tubes replaced by the trained nurse or a physician and comparisons on the outcomes were made. Patients were aware of the study and consented to have their medical records accessed to make the data comparisons.Relevance To Clinical PracticeWith more than 189,000 children in the United States relying on g-tubes, nursing staff will inevitably be involved in the care of patients with such a device. In addition, as pediatric EDs continue to develop longer and longer waiting times, we must learn how to better use our nursing staff for procedures within their scope and minimize LOS. Our research demonstrates the safety, feasibility, and general benefits of having the pediatric nursing staff replace g-tubes in the ED, and it is hoped that this will lead to beneficial policy changes.What Does This Article Contribute To The Wider Global Community   - Demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of nurse-only g-tube replacement- Reports on the statistically significant difference in LOS between physician and nurse replacement of g-tubes in a pediatric ED- Has the ability to lead to policy change in the pediatric ED that will allow for greater patient satisfaction and decrease patient cost.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…