1 / 18

Rachelle Robinson (Prince of Wales Hospital) Anne Spencer (Liverpool Hospital) On behalf of

‘Time is of the essence’: Proactive vs Reactive Tube feeding and swallowing outcomes with Head and Neck Cancer Patients. Rachelle Robinson (Prince of Wales Hospital) Anne Spencer (Liverpool Hospital) On behalf of NSW H&N EBP Group. New EBP Group in the Network.

michaellmyers
Télécharger la présentation

Rachelle Robinson (Prince of Wales Hospital) Anne Spencer (Liverpool Hospital) On behalf of

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘Time is of the essence’: Proactive vs Reactive Tube feeding and swallowing outcomes with Head and Neck Cancer Patients Rachelle Robinson (Prince of Wales Hospital) Anne Spencer (Liverpool Hospital) On behalf of NSW H&N EBP Group EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  2. New EBP Group in the Network • H&N Speech Pathology EBP Group • Newly formed EBP group in 2014 that is part of NSW Speech Pathology EBP Network • 2 EBP Leaders and 1 Academic Link from Sydney Uni & 18 speech pathologists as members • 12 sites in NSW critiqued papers (8 sites in Sydney; Also in Tweed Heads, Coffs Harbour, Wollongong, Newcastle) • Conducted over 7 Teleconference meetings in 2014 organised through Telstra • Funding of these TC meetings rotated between members EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  3. In head and neck cancer patients having chemo-radiation therapy, does prophylactic vs reactive tube feeding result in improved functional oral intake? EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  4. What does a typical H&N patient look like (on the inside) who speech pathology would manage? EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  5. Barriers to Oral Intake: Needs Multi-Disciplinary Management • Odynophagia • Dysphagia • Poor appetite / nausea • Xerostomia/ saliva changes • Impaired/ altered taste • Impaired dentition • Trismus • Fatigue EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  6. Timing of feeding tube placement is challenged Traditionally mainly Reactive Feeding Tubes • Previous belief re prophylactic PEGs:- • Stop swallowing/NBM • “Learned non use of swallowing” & the patients end up with long term dysphagia and worse swallowing outcomes. • When reactive NGTs are used: Remember that tube in area of radiation therapy fields and impacts on swallow/patient comfort EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  7. Do prophylactic feeding tubes (vs reactive) have a positive or negative impact on swallowing/oral intake outcomes? • Group identified and read 27 papers. • 10 suitable to critique & include in CAT. EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  8. Clinical Bottom Line NO conclusive evidence of improved functional oral intake in the short or long term with use of a prophylactic feeding tube placement compared to reactive feeding tube. EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  9. Weaknesses in Methodology • Eligible studies for this review were wrought with methodological weaknesses, such as: • Group selection bias (i.e. prophylactic tubes placed for patients with more severe swallowing problems at baseline) • Lack of descriptive criteria for patient selection and timing of reactive feeding tubes • Inconsistent reporting of dysphagia intervention and speech pathology involvement • Use of very generalised or ‘crude’ measures of dysphagia and oral intake EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  10. Clinical Bottom Line (ctd) • There is no reported deterioration in functional oral intake for patients who continued oral intake and/or continue swallowing exercises, while feeding tubes were insitu. • Placement of a prophylactic or reactive tube does not negatively impact functional oral intake. • Instead the severity of dysphagia at baseline, tumour staging, field of RTx and other factors determine swallow EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  11. What does this mean for our clinical practice?? • We cannot say that putting in prophylactic feeding tubes improves functional oral intake in short or longer term EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  12. What does this mean for our clinical practice??? Patients with prophylactic feeding tubes must continue to eat and drink throughout their treatment And/Or a range of exercises implemented pro-actively to prevent any further dysphagia EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  13. Implications for Service Delivery • Being mindful that pts with prophylactic feeding tubes, need to be seen during and after their RT +/- CT • Impacts of service delivery in metropolitan, rural and remote hospitals. EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  14. Where to from here? • We completed a review of our newly established EBP Group using Survey Monkey at end of 2014 meetings • Key Findings: • Meeting:- • Day & time, (70%) • duration (100%) and • frequency (90%) suited the majority EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  15. Key Findings from survey (ctd) • New styles of:- • Service delivery method for meeting (teleconference, 100%) • Information dissemination (Wiki, 90%) were liked by the majority • Some small teething issues (cost of teleconference issue for 1 member and issues with Wiki access for 2 members) • >75% of members saw Academic Link’s role in the group included completion of CATs, CAPs and in the provision of education to members • Only those going on leave were those planning not to be members in 2015 EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  16. Clinical Question 2015 • We are planning on revisiting our 2009 clinical question around:- Prophylactic exercises in patients having radiation +/- chemotherapy? • There is more recent research emerged and also potentially looking at: • Benefits of swallow therapy in the H&N CRT population? • Prophylactic versus reactive swallowing exercises • Regimes and compliance rates • Specific exercises of focus EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  17. Thanks to our group members who were all ‘Active’ and Wonderful!! • Molly Barnhart • Sophie Chandler • Virginia Simms • Katrina Blyth • Emma Charters • Danielle Stone • Elise Hamilton-Foster • Jessica Cooke • Katherine Kelly • Armalie Muller • Jessica Boehm • Therese Dodds • Dr Hans Bogaardt • Amanda Bailey • Asta Fung • Jenna Binstead • Elizabeth Walker EBP Showcase Dec 2014

  18. References of papers included in CAT • Sheth, C. H, Sharp, S., & Walters, E. R. (2013) Enteral feeding in H&N cancer pts at a UK cancer centre. Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics • Morton, Crowder et al (2009) . Elective gastrostomy, nutritional status and QOL in advanced H&N Ca pts receiving CRT. ANZ J Surg • Langmore, Krisciunas et al (2011) Does PEG use cause dysphagia in H&N Cancer?Dysphagia • Ames, Karnell et al (2011) Outcomes after the use of gastrostomy tubes in patients whose H&N cancer was managed with RT. Head & Neck • Corry, Poon et al (2009). Prospective study of PEG tubes vs. NGT for enteral feeing in patients with H&N Cancer undergoing (C)RT.Head & Neck • Silander, Nyman et al. (2012) Impact of PEG on malnutrition and QOL in patients with H&N cancer – a randomised study. Head & Neck • Oozer, Corsar et al. (2011) The impact of enteral feeding route on patient-reported long term swallowing outcome after CRT for H&N cancer. Oral Oncology • Williams & Teo et al (2012) Enteral feeding outcomes after CRT for oropharyngeal cancer: a role for a prophylactic gastrostomy. Oral oncology • Prestwich & Teo et al. (2014). Long-term swallow function after CRT for oropharyngeal cancer: the influence of prophylactic gastrostomy or reactive nasogastric tube. Clinical oncology • Chen et al (2009). Evaluating the role of prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement prior to definitive CRT for H&N Cancer. Head & Neck EBP Showcase Dec 2014

More Related