Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of the costs and consequences of systematic nutrition team follow-up over 12 mo after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Nutrition

Volumn 21, Issue 11-12, 2005, Pages 1071-1077

  Scott, Fiona ^a   Beech, Roger ^b   Smedley, Fiona ^a   Timmis, Lynne ^a   Stokes, Elizabeth ^b   Jones, Peter ^b   Roffe, Christine ^b   Bowling, Timothy E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

12 Months; Complications; Cost effectiveness; Follow up; Gastrostomy; Nutrition team

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEATH; EXTUBATION; FEEDING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NURSE; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT; PATIENT CARE; PERCUTANEOUS ENDOSCOPIC GASTROSTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE;

AGED; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; ENTERAL NUTRITION; FEMALE; GASTROSTOMY; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; NUTRITIONAL STATUS; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PATIENT READMISSION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 27944483700     PISSN: 08999007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2005.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. M. Elia, R. Stratton, C. Russell Current aspects of artificial nutrition support in the UK. A report by the British Artificial Nutrition survey (BANS), a committee of the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Maidenhead, UK 2002
2. M. Elia, C. Pennington, S. Wood, A. Micklewright, S. Cottee, C. Wheatley Enteral and parenteral nutrition in the community. A report by a working party of the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (BAPEN) Maidenhead, UK 1994
3. D.S. Sanders, M.J. Carter, J. D'Silva, M.E. McAlindon, P.J. Willemse, K.D. Bardham Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy a prospective analysis of hospital support required and complications following discharge into the community Eur J Clin Nutr 55 2001 610 614
4. A.J. Hughes, T.E. Bowling Is the current service for the insertion of endoscopic feeding tubes appropriate and acceptable? A UK survey Gut 50 suppl 2 2002 A20
5. A. Heaney, T.C. Tham Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies attitudes of general practitioners and how management may be improved Br J Gen Pract 51 2001 128 129
6. S.J. Pocock Clinical trials a practical approach 1983 John Wiley & Sons Chichester
7. E. Bannerman, J. Pendlebury, F. Phillips, S. Ghosh A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of HRQOL after PEG Eur J Gastroent Hepatol 12 2000 1101 1109
8. I. Wellwood, M. Dennis, C. Warlow Patients' and carers' satisfaction with acute stroke management Age Ageing 24 1995 519 524
9. British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain British national formulary, no 41 2001 British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Press London
10. A. Netten, L. Curtis Unit costs of health and social care 2000 2000 PSSRU, University of Kent Canterbury, UK
11. J. Cohen Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences 1988 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ
12. Department of Health NHS reference costs 2001 2002 Department of Health London, UK
13. E.P. McNamara, P. Flood, N.P. Kennedy Enteral tube feeding in the community survey of adult patients discharged from a Dublin hospital Clin Nutr 19 2000 15 22
14. L. Howard, M. Malone Clinical outcome of geriatric patients in the United States receiving home parenteral and enteral nutrition Am J Clin Nutr 66 1997 1364 1370