Search

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has accelerated the process of healthcare digitalization. This paradigm shift is a challenge for both healthcare professionals and patients. This article discusses the opinions of patients with different levels of familiarity with new technologies, as well as the perspective of healthcare professionals on new patients and technological innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Introduction: the nasal bridle (NB) is one of the strategies to avoid the displacement of tubes for enteral nutrition (EN) used during a nutritional intervention. Objectives: to review the efficacy and safety of NB placement in a patient population requiring EN by tube feeding. To analyze their clinical characteristics and identify complications related to this procedure. Methods: a retrospective observational study in usual clinical practice including patients admitted to a second-level hospital with EN catheters who required the use of a commercial NB-CORGRIP NG/NI TFEEDING TUBE RETENTION SYSTEM. Results: 51 patients with a mean age of 73 years (37-96) were analyzed; 64.7 % were men. Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OPD) was the fundamental indication for placement of an EN tube (54.9 %) followed by refusal to ingest (17.6 %), and orotracheal intubation (7.8 %), among others. NB was withdrawn in 7.8 % of cases due to change in digestive access (gastrostomy), in 21.6 % because of transition to the oral route, and in 9.8 % due to ignorance on how to use it. We found significant differences between accidental removal and self-withdrawal of probes before and after BN placement (2.59 ± 1.512 vs 0.24 ± 0.596; p < 0.05). No related complications were recorded except for only one case of skin ulcer. Conclusions: NB is a safe and effective retention system for the prevention of probe displacement and withdrawal in patients with a wide variety of pathologies. Training health professionals is essential for proper use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Palliative care provides a holistic approach and care for patients with a terminal illness and their families. In palliative care physical complaints as well as emotional, social and spiritual aspects are considered. Nutritional care should be also considered within palliative support. For those working in the nutritional support field, to withhold or withdraw nutritional support may be an ethical dilemma in this scenario. The controversy starts when considering nutrition and hydration as basic care or a treatment. The goals of nutrition support in palliative care patients differ from common ones, aiming to improve quality of life, survival or both. The decision should be based on a consideration of prognosis (length of survival), quality of life, and risks-benefits ratio. Regarding oral nutrition (with or without oral supplements) the idea prevails of "comfort feeding", based on providing oral feeding till discomfort or avoidance develop. There is no evidence on the benefit of specific nutrients, despite the fact that omega-3 FAs may have some positive effects in patients with cancer. Regarding nutritional support (enteral or parenteral), no scientific evidence is present, so the decision needs to be agreed according to the desires and beliefs of the patient and their family, and based on a consensus with the interdisciplinary team on the aims of this support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky ≥ 50 or ECOG ≤ 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.

Introduction: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has accelerated the process of healthcare digitalization. This paradigm shift is a challenge for both healthcare professionals and patients. This article discusses the opinions of patients with different levels of familiarity with new technologies, as well as the perspective of healthcare professionals on new patients and technological innovations.

Introduction: This paper from the ethics Working Group presents a summary of the recommendations of the nutritional management of patients with advanced dementia.