Marsha L. Cirgin Ellett

Introduction to qualitative research.

The purpose of this article is to introduce practicing nurses to qualitative research. Qualitative research terms are defined, philosophy of science is briefly discussed, and several types of qualitative research studies are described. A hermeneutic phenomenological study of infant colic is described as an example of qualitative research useful in gastroenterology nursing. Finally, suggested criteria for evaluating a qualitative study are introduced.

Systematic review of health-related quality of life models

BackgroundA systematic literature review was conducted to (a) identify the most frequently used health-related quality of life (HRQOL) models and (b) critique those models.MethodsOnline search engines were queried using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We reviewed titles, abstracts, and then full-text articles for their relevance to this review. Then the most commonly used models were identified, reviewed in tables, and critiqued using published criteria.ResultsOf 1,602 titles identified, 100 articles from 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently used HRQOL models were: Wilson and Cleary (16%), Ferrans and colleagues (4%), or World Health Organization (WHO) (5%). Ferrans and colleagues’ model was a revision of Wilson and Cleary’s model and appeared to have the greatest potential to guide future HRQOL research and practice.ConclusionsRecommendations are for researchers to use one of the three common HRQOL models unless there are compelling and clearly delineated reasons for creating new models. Disease-specific models can be derived from one of the three commonly used HRQOL models. We recommend Ferrans and colleagues’ model because they added individual and environmental characteristics to the popular Wilson and Cleary model to better explain HRQOL. Using a common HRQOL model across studies will promote a coherent body of evidence that will more quickly advance the science in the area of HRQOL.

What is known about methods of correctly placing gastric tubes in adults and children.

An abdominal radiograph is considered the “gold standard” for determining the position of flexible small-bore nasogastric/orogastric tubes. However, placement must be checked frequently while a tube is in place, and the summative radiation risk of multiple radiographs, as well as their expense, make the development of adequate bedside placement-locating methods imperative. Several methods of detecting tube placement have been investigated in adults, including: aspirating gastric contents and measuring the pH, bilirubin, pepsin, and trypsin levels; examining the visual characteristics of aspirate; placing the proximal end of the tube under water and observing for bubbles in synchrony with expirations; measuring the carbon dioxide level at the proximal end of the nasogastric/orogastric tube; auscultation for a gurgling sound over the epigastrium or left upper quadrant of the abdomen; and measuring the length from the nose/mouth to the proximal end of the tube. Many researchers have already concluded simple auscultation is not a reliable method to assess tube position because injection of air into the tracheobronchial tree or into the pleural space can produce a sound indistinguishable from that produced by injecting air into the gastrointestinal tract. In adults, only pH and bilirubin of aspirate have been shown both to reliably predict tube position and to have inexpensive simple bedside tests. In children, only pH of aspirate has been shown to be reliable. Research on gastric tube placement in children is relatively new because children are challenging to study in that they are considered a vulnerable population. This review of the literature includes results of both adult and pediatric studies. Tube placement error rates varied from 1.9% to 89.5% in adults and between 20.9% and 43.5% in children.

Gastric tube placement in young children.

In this study, the internal position of a nasogastric/orogastric tube was determined in 72 children, prior to an abdominal radiograph, by measuring CO2 and pH and bilirubin of tube aspirate. Fifteen of the 72 tubes (20.8%) were incorrectly placed on radiograph. Using the suggested adult cutoff of pH 5, pH of aspirate correctly predicted misplacement outside the stomach in 7/28 (25%) of children and correctly predicted correct placement in the stomach in 34 of 40 children (85%). Using the suggested adult cutoff of bilirubin ≥ 5 mg/dL, bilirubin monitoring failed to identify either of two incorrectly placed tubes. In this study, using an algorithm of assuming stomach placement if the pH of aspirate is ≤ 5 and obtaining an abdominal radiograph when either no aspirate is obtained or the pH is >5 would have resulted in 92% accuracy. Alternatively, obtaining an abdominal radiograph would result in nearly 100% accuracy.

Important Facts About Intestinal Feeding Tube Placement

Enteral feeding is desirable when the gastrointestinal tract is functional because it allows better use of nutrients, is safer, and is more cost-effective than parenteral nutrition. Feeding through a gastric tube, however, is often not feasible in severely ill adults and children because of gastric paresis leading to recurrent episodes of gastroesophageal reflux with the risk of subsequent aspiration. Feeding into the small intestine (duodenum or jejunum) through a nasointestinal tube, therefore, is preferred. Unfortunately, no method of enteral feeding is risk free. This literature review addresses the following 10 topics: (a) the reasons why nasointestinal tube feeding is better tolerated by some patients, (b) candidates for nasointestinal tube feeding, (c) options for selecting nasointestinal tubes, (d) recommended methods for predicting the distance to insert nasointestinal tubes, (e) recommended methods for placing nasointestinal tubes, (f) how promotility medications work and whether they facilitate nasointestinal tube placement, (g) nasointestinal tube placement error rate, (h) methods of determining the internal location of nasointestinal tubes, (i) complications associated with nasointestinal tube use, and (j) other pertinent issues surrounding feeding through nasointestinal tubes. The available research evidence is summarized and recommendations for future work are suggested.

Predicting the Insertion Distance for Placing Gastric Tubes

Approximately 1 million enteral tubes are placed through the nose or mouth in adults and children in the United States annually. Previous studies found gastric tube placement errors to be common. A primary issue in ensuring safe and effective gastric feeding by tube is achieving optimal tube position on insertion. The purpose of this study is to use 24 variables to develop a clinical prediction rule for gastric tube insertion distance in adults, using the internal-nares-to-distallower esophageal-sphincter distance. A three-variable model using gender, weight, and nose-umbilicus-flat was selected. This new model, validated using nonparametric bootstrap cross-validation, correctly predicted gastric tube insertion distance 85.3% of the time. This new model is compared to two other methods, one evidence based and one commonly used in practice, and was found to be superior. Two nomograms, one for each gender, are drawn to make this new model easier to use.

Comparing methods of determining insertion length for placing gastric tubes in children 1 month to 17 years of age

PURPOSE The purpose was to compare three methods of predicting the gastric tube insertion length in children 1 month to 17 years of age: age-related, height-based (ARHB); nose-ear-xiphoid (NEX); and nose-ear-mid-umbilicus (NEMU). DESIGN AND METHODS The design was a randomized controlled trial. Children were randomly assigned to the ARHB, NEX, or NEMU groups. Tubes placed high were considered to be misplaced. RESULTS There were significant differences in percentages of correctly placed tubes, with ARHB and NEMU being more accurate than NEX. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS NEX should no longer be used as a gastric tube insertion-length predictor. Either ARHB or NEMU should be used.

A literature review of the safety and efficacy of using propofol for sedation in endoscopy.

A 2007 survey of members of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates identified a need for more evidence regarding sedation medications including propofol. Therefore, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Randomized Clinical Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov) databases were individually searched using the term propofol, limited to human, English, 2000-2009, review articles, and randomized clinical trials. A total of 46 resources contributed to this review, with emphasis on 16 studies ranging from retrospective chart reviews to double-blind, randomized controlled trials. Nonanesthesia personnel-administered propofol, including that administered by specially trained nurses under the supervision of an endoscopist, appears to be safe with minor, easily resolved, adverse events occurring in less than 1% of patients. These minor adverse events included four studies reporting hypoxemia requiring occasional intervention, three studies reporting hypotension, and two studies reporting bradycardia. No patients required tracheal intubation, and no deaths were reported.

SGNA Endoscopic Disinfectant Survey

The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of health problems, use of protective attire, and health surveillance practices in a large group of healthcare workers exposed to glutaraldehyde. The results revealed that 37.8% of respondents reported at least one symptom/illness before exposure to glutaraldehyde. Nearly 60% of respondents reported symptoms/illnesses after glutaraldehyde exposure. Healthcare workers employed > or = 5 years tended to report fewer health problems preexposure and slightly more problems postexposure compared with all respondents. Surprisingly, smokers reported a nearly equal number of symptoms/illnesses both pre- and postexposure when compared with the total group. Approximately 95% of respondents always wore gloves, usually latex; 52% always wore moisture-proof outer wear; 28% always wore masks; and 55% always wore eye protection when exposed to glutaraldehyde. Those who used protective attire reported as many symptoms/illnesses as those who did not. Healthcare workers need to demand that the ambient glutaraldehyde level in the endoscopy cleaning area be checked periodically and records of these checks kept. Manufacturers need to produce more effective protective attire. Employers need to purchase protective attire for employees, and employees need to wear it until alternative endoscopic disinfectant/sterilization methods can be found.

Out of the abyss of colic: a view through the fathers' eyes.

Purpose:To elucidate the experience of fathers living with a colicky infant. Study Design and Methods:Interpretive phenomenology using in-depth interviews with 10 fathers of colicky infants. Reiterative interview reading, repeated meaning unit sorting, going back to the literature, and discussions gave way to emerging themes. Findings:The overall experience is one of “falling into and arising from the crying abyss together as a family.” Four themes emerged: (a) falling in, (b) hitting bottom, (c) weaving strands to make a rope, and (d) climbing out. Clinical Implications:From their stories, fathers provide insight useful to nurses assisting families of colicky infants through a very difficult time. Nurses should talk to fathers directly about the possibility of colic, and teach both parents what it is, how long it usually lasts, and what can be done about it. Anticipatory guidance as well as discussion about colic during newborn health visits can help parents to vocalize their feelings, and learn what actions to take when the stress of colic becomes overwhelming.