Tube and stoma issues in a home tube-fed population: an Australian audit

This work was presented at the Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2024 by the Tube Dietitian Team.

The below abstract has been published in the conference journal:

Background: Home tube feeding support is on the rise, however, managing feeding tubes and stomas can be challenging. This audit investigated the prevalence of issues and consequences. 

Method: A prospective audit was conducted over a 5-month period in a community-based nutrition service. Tube and stoma issues experienced in the past three months were recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and subgroup comparisons (tube type and delivery method). 

Result: Fifty-three clients were included (39 (IQR 27-56) years old, 53% female, 42% neurological disorders, 55% with a ‘dangler’ tube, 38% with a ‘button’ tube, 81% on bolus delivery). Most (70%) received all their nutrition via tube. Stoma (40%) and tube (32%) issues were prevalent. The most common issues were redness/hypergranulation (71%) and formula/mold build-up (41%). Clients with tube issues were 13 times more likely to miss nutrition intake (29% vs. 0%, RR 13.44 (CI 0.80 – 227.21), p=0.071) and 9 times more likely to present to the emergency department (18% vs. 0% RR 8.56 (CI 0.47 – 155.03), p=0.146) than those with stoma issues. Clients who had a ‘dangler’ tube were 0.5 and 0.6 times more likely to have tube (45% vs. 20%, RR 0.45 (CI 0.17 – 1.17), p=0.446) and stoma issues  (52% vs. 20%, RR 0.58 (CI 0.27-1.24), p=0.158), respectively, than those with a ‘button’. Clients on a bolus delivery were 1.4 times more likely to have stoma issues than those on continuous delivery (42% vs. 30%, RR 1.40 (0.51-3.83), p=0.518). 

Conclusion: Feeding tube and stoma issues were prevalent among home tube-fed clients, with tube issues resulting in more serious consequences. Tube type and delivery method seem to influence issue prevalence. Larger studies are required.

Funding source: This research did not receive any funding.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.