A Quality Initiative to Prioritize Enteral Feeding in Bronchiolitis

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: Recent studies have identified enteral feeding as a safe alternative to intravenous fluid hydration for inpatients with bronchiolitis receiving respiratory support. Specifically, it can improve vital signs, shorten time on high-flow nasal cannula, and is associated with reduced length of stay. We aimed to increase the percentage of patients receiving enteral feeding on admission with mild-to-moderate bronchiolitis, including those on high-flow nasal cannula, from 83% to 95% within 6 months. Methods: A multidisciplinary quality improvement team identified key drivers preventing enteral feeding as lack of standardization, perception of aspiration risk, and lack of familiarity with feeding orders. PDSA cycles focused on developing and implementing a bronchiolitis clinical practice pathway with an embedded guideline and order set as decision support to prioritize enteral feeding. Additionally, educational sessions were provided for trainees and attendings who were impacted by this pathway. Results: Following interventions, initiation of enteral feeding increased (83%-96%). Additionally, intravenous line placement decreased (37%-12%) with a mirrored increase in nasogastric tube placement (4%-21%). This was associated with a shorter overall length of stay and no increased transfer rate to intensive care. Conclusions: Using quality improvement methodology to standardize enteral feeding and hydration increased the initiation rate of enteral feeding in patients admitted with bronchiolitis. These changes were seen immediately after the implementation of the clinical pathway and sustained throughout the bronchiolitis season.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Beam, N., Long, A., Nicholson, A., Jary, L., Veele, R., Kalinowski, N., … Hadley, A. (2024). A Quality Initiative to Prioritize Enteral Feeding in Bronchiolitis. Pediatric Quality and Safety, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000735

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free