METHODOLOGY: A prospective comparison of subjective global assessment (SGA), and anthropometry (mid-arm muscle circumference, MAMC; triceps skinfold thickness, TST) between elderly stroke patients on long-term NG feeding and matched controls was performed. Selected clinicians and carers of patients were interviewed to assess their knowledge and attitudes to gastrostomy feeding.
RESULTS: 140 patients (70 NG, 70 oral) were recruited between September 2010 and February 2011. Nutritional status was poorer in the NG compared to the oral group (SGA grade C 38.6% NG vs 0% oral, p<0.001; TST males 10.7 + 3.7 mm NG vs 15.4 + 4.6 mm oral, p<0.001; MAMCmales 187.9 + 40.4 mm NG vs 228.7 + 31.8 mm oral, p<0.001). 45 (64.3%) patients on long-term NG feeding reported complications, mainly consisting of dislodgement (50.5%), aspiration of feed content (8.6%) and trauma from insertion (4.3%). Among 20 clinicians from relevant speciliaties who were interviewed, only 11 (55%) clinicians would routinely recommend a PEG. All neurologists (100%) would recommend a PEG, whilst the response was mixed among non-neurologists. Among carers, lack of information (47.1%) was the commonest reason stated for not choosing a PEG.
CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with stroke on long term NG feeding have a poor nutritional status. Lack of recommendation by clinicians appears to be a major barrier to PEG feeding in these patients.
METHODS: A 28-item instrument which comprised of 5 domains: diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, medications and general issues was designed and tested. One point was given for every correct answer, whilst zero was given for incorrect answers. Scores ranged from 0 to 28, which were then converted into percentage. This was administered to 77 patients with type 2 diabetes in a tertiary hospital, who were on medication(s) for diabetes and who could understand English (patient group), and to 40 pharmacists (professional group). The DHL knowledge instrument was administered again to the patient group after one month. Excluded were patients less than 18 years old.
RESULTS: Flesch reading ease was 60, which is satisfactory, while the mean difficulty factor(SD) was 0.74(0.21), indicating that DHL knowledge instrument was moderately easy. Internal consistency of the instrument was good, with Cronbach's α = 0.791. The test-retest scores showed no significant difference for 26 out of the 28 items, indicating that the questionnaire has achieved stable reliability. The overall mean(SD) knowledge scores was significantly different between the patient and professional groups [74.35(14.88) versus 93.84(6.47), p < 0.001]. This means that the DHL knowledge instrument could differentiate the knowledge levels of participants. The DHL knowledge instrument shows similar psychometric properties as other validated questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: The DHL knowledge instrument shows good promise to be adopted as an instrument for assessing diabetic patients' knowledge concerning their disease conditions and medications in Malaysia.