The Effects of Pediatric & Geriatric Enteral Nutrition on Quality of Life Outcomes E. Brooke Thevenin, B.S., Shannon Stephens, B.S., Pamela Holland, M.A., CCC-SLP, Craig Coleman, M.A., CCC-SLP, BCS-F Marshall University Department of Communication Disorders Introduction Population-Based Results Implications Enteral nutrition, also known as tube feeding, is the process of transporting nutrients to the stomach, duodenum, or jejunum depending on the severity and period of time for which nutritional aid is necessary (Forchielli, Bines, Walker, Watkins, & Duggan, 1996). The necessity for this nutritional delivery method may stem from dysphagia or other disorders that result in loss of appetite, feeding difficulties, or swallowing function (Forchielli, et al., 1996). This literature review focuses on concerns surrounding enteral nutrition placements and quality of life outcomes in pediatric and geriatric patients, as well as their caregivers, by investigating both positive and negative outcomes in order to determine overall impacts on quality of life. Shared positive and negative outcomes provide speech-language pathologists knowledge for clinical application. Positive and negative outcomes occur in any patient utilizing enteral nutrition, regardless of demographics. Speech-language pathologists can acquire knowledge of similarities across the lifespan and utilize this information when providing counseling, treatment, or diagnostic services to clients. In order to efficiently provide services to these populations, professionals should consider influential factors that impact quality of life both before and after enteral nutrition placements occur, as well as the client/caregiver views on quality versus quantity of life. Pediatric Positive Outcomes Pediatric Negative Outcomes Physical Factors Weight Gain, Physical Growth Emotional/Social Factors Decreased Stress Related to Feeding Given Oral Methods Were Previously Utilized Access to Activities Counseling Opportunities for Family/Caregivers Nutritional Factors Adequate Medication Delivery Supportive of Transition to Oral Feeding Decreased Dehydration Concerns Vomiting, Refluxes :GER, GOR Discomfort/ Pain, Skin Fragility Loss of Oral Eating Abilities Pneumonia Pediatric Patient Stress, Distrust of Adults Parent/ Caregiver Worry/Fear, Guilt, Depression, Decreased, Social Activity, Stress Difficulty with Mealtime, Socialization, Difficulty with Concept of Mealtimes Technical Factors Leakage, Blockage, Placement/ Tube Related Factors Methods Limitations A total of eleven research articles, six pediatric and five geriatric population studies, were selected based upon the following criterion: Pediatric or geriatric population sample Employment of nasogastric, gastrostomy, jejunostomy, and gastrojejunostomy enteral nutrition placements Observation of the effects of enteral nutrition on patient/caregiver’s quality of life Peer-reviewed research studies The articles were located using research engines such as ASHA Wire, ASHA Practice Portal, Google Scholar, and EBSCO Host. Search terms for pediatric-based journals included “jejunostomy tubes and children”, “g-tubes and complications”, “children and enteral nutrition”, and “GJ-tubes” whereas the geriatric-based journal search terms included “dysphagia and geriatrics”, “geriatric feeding methods”, “enteral nutrition and dysphagia”, and “gastrostomy in geriatric populations”. Researchers identified several limitations within this study design. In regards to the literature, few articles specifically examined individual aspects such as physical, emotional/social, nutritional, and technical factors. Expanding the inclusionary criterion to studies that observed these outcomes would provide more evidence to illustrate the positive and negative connections between enteral nutrition and quality of life outcomes. Moreover, the influence of factors such as underlying medical conditions on positive and negative outcomes were not examined, but these variables cannot be overlooked when examining patient outcomes. This may be worth consideration in future research. The methods by which positive and negative outcomes were measured within articles were also a limitation. The use of questionnaires and surveys assessed negative outcomes more so than positive outcomes, minimizing the positive outcomes that could be reported by patients. Geriatric Positive Outcomes Geriatric Negative Outcomes Physical Factors Increased Body Mass Index Prevention of Malnutrition Emotional/Social Factors Caregiver Approval of Enteral Nutrition Delivery Nutritional Factors Ease of Feeding Procedures Increased Delivery of Nutrients Global Health Status, Digestive Concerns, Nausea, Fatigue, Insomnia, Coughing/ Dyspnea, Infection Social Functioning Speech Difficulty Role Functioning Difficulty with Daily Activities Emotional Functioning Body Image/ Sexuality, Fear of Accidental Tube Removal, Depression, Financial Strain Hunger, Diurnal/ Nocturnal Thirst Technical Factors Tube Displacement, Blockage . References Disclosures: Brooke Thevenin, Shannon Stephens, Pamela Holland, and Craig Coleman have no financial or non-financial relationships to disclose. Special Thanks: The authors would like to give special thanks to the Department of Communication Disorders for their support in our research endeavors. 2015 Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Denver CO Session 8637 Poster 443 Please see the provided handout for a complete list of references.