Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEG feeding should be considered for any patient who is unable to meet his/her
nutritional requirements via the oral route and who is likely to require artificial
nutritional support for at least four weeks.
Clinical situations in which these conditions may apply can be divided into the
following broad categories:
CATEGORIES
A. Mechanical dysphagia due to obstruction to the upper aero-digestive tract (e.g.
head and neck cancer)
B. Neurological dysphagia, where there is the prospect of recovery from the
underlying disease (e.g. many acute strokes)
C. Inability to eat due to global neurological damage, where there is the prospect
of recovery from the underlying disease (e.g. brain injury, reversible coma)
D. Where there is no problem with eating but nutritional requirements are
increased due to malabsorption (e.g. cystic fibrosis, Crohns disease)
E. Where there is no malabsorption or dysphagia but chronic disease is causing
weight loss due to loss of appetite and/or increased catabolism (e.g chronic
renal failure)
F. Neurological dysphagia, where the cause is a progressive neurological
disorder without prospect of recovery (e.g. Motor Neurone Disease)
G. Inability to eat due to severe global neurological damage, where there is no
prospect of recovery from the underlying disease (e.g. minimally responsive
state, severe stroke)
H. Inability to eat due to severe dementia
I. Where there is refusal to eat because of a psychiatric disorder (e.g. depression
or anorexia nervosa)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Categories A D
Category F
Category G
Category H
Category I
SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES
Whenever consideration is given to withholding PEG feeding from a patient in
whom death is not imminent, it is recommended that the proposal should be
subject to formal clinical review by a senior clinician who has experience of the
condition from which the patient is suffering and who is not part of the treating
team.
Where the decision not to treat is supported, details of the case and any
discussions that have taken place should be fully documented. The reasons for the
decision should be set out clearly in the case notes so that they are available for
subsequent review if necessary.
APPENDIX A
Basic Requirements for Competence
To be regarded as competent to make a decision regarding treatment, a patient must be
able to comprehend and retain information which is material to that decision.
Specifically, they must be able to understand the likely consequences of accepting or
refusing the treatment in question.
Furthermore, they must be able to use the information and weigh it in the balance as
part of the process of arriving at a decision.
APPENDIX B
Requirements for a Valid Advance Directive
The patient must have been competent when the advance directive was drawn up
It should be clear that the patient had envisaged the type of situation which has
subsequently arisen and for which the advance directive is being invoked
REFERENCES:
Withholding or Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical Treatment. British Medical
Association. BMJ Books 1999
Ethical and Legal Aspects of Clinical Hydration and Nutritional Support. ed LennardJones, JE. BAPEN 1998
Gillick MR. Rethinking the Role of Tube Feeding in Patients with Advanced
Dementia. NEJM 2000; 342: 206-10
Finucane TE, Bynum JPW. Use of tube feeding to prevent aspiration pneumonia.
Lancet 1996; 348: 1421-24
Rabeneck L, McCullough LB, Wray NP. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive
guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet 1997;
349: 496-98
Dr Paul OToole
January 2004