Confirming nasogastric tube position before every use (Version 1.0)
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Confirming ongoing nasogastric tube position – an analysis of practice and outcomes between the UK and Australia
IRAS ID
277329
Contact name
Kate Glen
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Queensland University of Technology
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 11 days
Research summary
Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) are frequently inserted in hospitals to provide essential nutrition, preventing malnutrition in patients unable to consume adequate nutrition. To prevent adverse outcomes, such as the use of an incorrectly positioned NGT, UK guidelines recommend confirming correct NGT position before every use, by aspirating the NGT and pH testing, aiming for a result of pH≤5.5. If this method fails, UK guidelines recommend patients should undergo a chest X-ray. Australian guidelines by Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Health recommend the confirmation of NGT position before every use by measuring the external length of the tube. No research currently exists giving clear conclusions about which ongoing testing method is best at preventing the use of an incorrectly placed tube, and what difference in delays to feeding or excessive X-rays are associated with these two different NGT position testing methods.
This study will produce primary data on the positive and negative outcomes associated with ongoing NGT position testing, via observational chart review, of pH testing in the UK and external tube length measurement in Australia. These outcomes will include delays to feeding, frequency of X-rays, missed medications, tube dislodgement and failure to confirm NGT position. The study will be run in three main parts; (a) UK study at University College London Hospital NHS Trust (UCLH); (b) Study in a comparable hospital in Queensland, Australia; (c) compare and contrast results from (a) & (b) to see what conclusions about patient outcomes can be drawn. The study at UCLH will initially be conducted as a feasibility on intensive care and one surgical ward to test the feasibility of the study design before conducting a full study. This ethics application is for the UCLH study (a), and permission to compare deidentified summary data with an equivalent Australian dataset (c).REC name
London - Surrey Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
21/LO/0124
Date of REC Opinion
11 Feb 2021
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion