Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Remote monitoring for neonates requiring continued nasogastric tube feeding: implementation, patient characteristics, and early outcomes

Journal of Perinatology volume 43, pages 1125–1130 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

Our neonatal intensive care unit utilizes remote patient monitoring to facilitate hospital discharge with nasogastric tube (NGT) feeds. Program implementation, patient characteristics, and initial outcomes are described.

Study design

Data was collected prospectively in this implementation study. Descriptive statistics define weight gain, number of NGT feed days, number of days on monitoring, and physician time spent. Patient characteristics, readmissions, and implementation details are described.

Results

One-hundred and four babies consented to and completed data collection. Average weight gain on monitoring was 31.4 g/day (SD 10.2). Eighty-nine babies (85.6%) achieved full oral feeds while on the program, requiring a median 5 NGT feed days (IQR 2–13) and a median 15 days on monitoring (IQR 11–27). Average physician time spent was 9.1 min per day (SD 3.7). Six babies (5.8%) had unscheduled readmissions while on the program.

Conclusion

Remote monitoring programs can facilitate discharge for babies with continued NGT needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on F, Newborn. Hospital discharge of the high-risk neonate. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1119–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards L, Cotten CM, Smith PB, Goldberg R, Saha S, Das A, et al. Inadequate oral feeding as a barrier to discharge in moderately preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2019;39:1219–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ortenstrand A, Waldenstrom U, Winbladh B. Early discharge of preterm infants needing limited special care, followed by domiciliary nursing care. Acta Paediatr. 1999;88:1024–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meerlo-Habing ZE, Kosters-Boes EA, Klip H, Brand PL. Early discharge with tube feeding at home for preterm infants is associated with longer duration of breast feeding. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009;94:F294–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lundberg B, Lindgren C, Palme-Kilander C, Ortenstrand A, Bonamy AK, Sarman I. Hospital-assisted home care after early discharge from a Swedish neonatal intensive care unit was safe and readmissions were rare. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:895–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Kampen F, de Mol A, Korstanje J, Groof FM, van Meurs-Asseler L, Stas H, et al. Early discharge of premature infants <37 weeks gestational age with nasogastric tube feeding: the new standard of care? Eur J Pediatr. 2019;178:497–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sturm LD. Implementation and evaluation of a home gavage program for preterm infants. Neonatal Netw. 2005;24:21–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Evanochko C, Jancs-Kelley S, Boyle R, Fox M, Molesky M, Byrne P. Facilitating early discharge from the NICU: the development of a home gavage program and neonatal outpatient clinic. Neonatal Netw. 1996;15:44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahnfeldt AM, Stanchev H, Jorgensen HL, Greisen G. Age and weight at final discharge from an early discharge programme for stable but tube-fed preterm infants. Acta Paediatr. 2015;104:377–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lagatta JM, Uhing M, Acharya K, Lavoie J, Rholl E, Malin K, et al. Actual and potential impact of a home nasogastric tube feeding program for infants whose neonatal intensive care unit discharge is affected by delayed oral feedings. J Pediatr. 2021;234:38–45.e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Khalil ST, Uhing MR, Duesing L, Visotcky A, Tarima S, Nghiem-Rao TH. Outcomes of infants with home tube feeding: comparing nasogastric vs gastrostomy tubes. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2017;41:1380–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mago-Shah DD, Malcolm WF, Greenberg RG, Goldstein RF. Discharging medically complex infants with supplemental nasogastric tube feeds: impact on neonatal intensive care unit length of stay and prevention of gastrostomy tubes. Am J Perinatol. 2021;38:e207–14.

  13. Williams SL, Popowics NM, Tadesse DG, Poindexter BB, Merhar SL. Tube feeding outcomes of infants in a Level IV NICU. J Perinatol. 2019;39:1406–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. White BR, Ermarth A, Thomas D, Arguinchona O, Presson AP, Ling CY. Creation of a standard model for tube feeding at neonatal intensive care unit discharge. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2020;44:491–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ermarth A, Thomas D, Ling CY, Cardullo A, White BR. Effective tube weaning and predictive clinical characteristics of NICU patients with feeding dysfunction. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2020;44:920–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Foster C, Schinasi D, Kan K, Macy M, Wheeler D, Curfman A. Remote monitoring of patient- and family-generated health data in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2022;149:e2021054137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garne Holm K, Brodsgaard A, Zachariassen G, Smith AC, Clemensen J. Participatory design methods for the development of a clinical telehealth service for neonatal homecare. SAGE Open Med. 2017;5:2050312117731252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Holm KG, Clemensen J, Brodsgaard A, Smith AC, Maastrup R, Zachariassen G. Growth and breastfeeding of preterm infants receiving neonatal tele-homecare compared to hospital-based care. J Neonatal Perinat Med. 2019;12:277–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hagi-Pedersen MB, Dessau RB, Norlyk A, Stanchev H, Kronborg H. Comparison of video and in-hospital consultations during early in-home care for premature infants and their families: a randomised trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28:24–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gund A, Sjoqvist BA, Wigert H, Hentz E, Lindecrantz K, Bry K. A randomized controlled study about the use of eHealth in the home health care of premature infants. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2013;13:22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Robinson C, Gund A, Sjoqvist BA, Bry K. Using telemedicine in the care of newborn infants after discharge from a neonatal intensive care unit reduced the need of hospital visits. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:902–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Vergales BD, Murray PD, Miller SE, Vergales JE. Safety and efficacy of a home nasogastric monitoring program for premature infants. J Neonatal Perinat Med. 2022;15:165–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bardach SH, Perry AN, Kapadia NS, Richards KE, Cogswell LK, Hartman TK. Redesigning care to support earlier discharge from a neonatal intensive care unit: a design thinking informed pilot. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11:e001736.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hannan KE, Hwang SS, Bourque SL. Readmissions among NICU graduates: who, when and why? Semin Perinatol. 2020;44:151245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the OHSU Foundation, Doernbecher Philanthropy Board, and the donors who made the creation of Growing @ Home a possibility. Thank you to Brooke Vergales, MD, University of Virginia, for her guidance in creating our remote patient monitoring program, and to Dmitry Dukhovny MD, MPH and Robert Schelonka, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, for their review of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Christina Fisher

    Present address: Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Portland, OR, USA

    Christina Fisher, Meredith Haag, Angela Douglas & Jamie B. Warren

  2. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Arnette Kayhani

Authors
  1. Christina Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meredith Haag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arnette Kayhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jamie B. Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CF carried out the initial analysis and interpretation of the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. MH carried out final analysis of the data, reviewed and revised the manuscript. AD and AK conceptualized and designed the study, participated in acquisition of data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. JBW conceptualized and designed the study, participated in and supervised data collection, participated in data analysis and interpretation, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie B. Warren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Oregon Health & Science University (#19657). The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, C., Haag, M., Douglas, A. et al. Remote monitoring for neonates requiring continued nasogastric tube feeding: implementation, patient characteristics, and early outcomes. J Perinatol 43, 1125–1130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01732-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01732-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links