Background Blind insertion of feeding tubes remains unsafe. Electromagnetic placement devices such as the CORTRAK Enteral Access System allow operators to interpret placement of feeding tubes in real time. However, pneumothoraces have been reported and inadequate user expertise is a concern. Objective To explore factors influencing competency of CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion. Methods A prospective, observational pilot study was conducted. Data collection included demographics, self-confidence, clinical judgment regarding CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion, and general self-efficacy. CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertions were performed with the Anatomical Box and CORMAN task trainers. Results Twenty nurses who had inserted a mean of 53 CORTRAK feeding tubes participated. Participants inserted a mean of 2 CORTRAK feeding tubes weekly; each had inserted a feeding tube in the past 7 days. All superusers were competent; 1 required remediation for improper receiver unit placement. Mean (SD) scores were 35 (3.68) on a 40-point scale for self-efficacy, 4.6 (0.68) on a 5-point scale for self-reported feeding tube insertion confidence, and 4.85 (0.49) on a 5-point scale for demonstrated confidence. Participants estimated that 8 CORTRAK-assisted insertions were needed before they felt competent as super users. Confidence with the CORTRAK tracing was estimated to require 10 feeding tube insertions. Six participants continued to assess placement by auscultation, suggesting low confidence in their interpretation of the tracing. Conclusions At least 3 observations should be performed to assess initial competency; the number should be individualized to the operator. Interpretation of the insertion tracing is complex and requires multiple performance opportunities to gain competency and confidence for this high-risk skill.

Background Electromagnetic devices to guide feeding tube placement such as the CORTRAK Enteral Access System have shown promising results; however, researchers in recent studies have expressed concern that a higher level of user expertise may be required for safe use. Objectives To review adverse events related to CORTRAK-assisted feeding tube insertion reported in the Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Methods A retrospective, secondary analysis of the MAUDE database was performed to evaluate adverse events (ie, injury or death of patient) related to CORTRAK. Results Fifty-four adverse events between January 1, 2006 and February 29, 2016 were identified and reviewed. Most events (98%) involved feeding tube placement in the lungs (37%, left lung; 46%, right lung; 15%, not specified). Lung complications included pneumothorax (77%) and pneumonitis (21%). Death occurred in 17% of lung placements. Clinicians failed to recognize placement in 89% of CORTRAK insertion tracings reviewed. Conclusions Lung placement is not unique to CORTRAK and is an inherent risk of all feeding tube insertions. In known or suspected lung placement, feeding tubes should be removed and radiography performed to assess for pneumothorax. Clinicians must observe closely for lung placement and discriminate lung from gastric placement on insertion tracings. Clinicians require specialized training and experience to develop competency in using the CORTRAK device, although the exact amount of experience needed is unknown.

Background Harm events such as pneumothoraces and pneumonia continue to be associated with feeding tube insertion. Most bedside verification methods are not accurate to discriminate pulmonary from gastrointestinal system. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines do not support auscultation of feeding tubes in adults, yet auscultation is the most common method used. Objectives Our survey assessed national feeding tube verification practices used by critical care nurses, including progress in auscultation method deimplementation, and stylet reinsertion and cleansing practices. Methods A national survey of 408 critical care nurses was performed. Results The majority performed auscultation (311 of 408 [76%]) to verify feeding tube placement. In the final multivariable model, nursing education, facility type, observation of colleagues performing auscultation, and awareness of an institutional policy were associated with auscultation of feeding tubes. Thirty-five percent used enteral access devices to verify initial feeding tube placement. Stylet cleansing methods were variable; 38% of reinserted stylets were not cleansed. Discussion Minimal progress has been made in deimplementation of auscultation in the past 7 years despite passive knowledge dissemination in research articles, clinical practice guidelines, and procedure manuals. Although pH measure is used as a first-line feeding tube verification method in the United Kingdom, it is rarely used in the United States. Clinical practice guidelines should be updated to incorporate new research on enteral access systems. Conclusions Tradition-based practices such as auscultation and certain stylet cleansing methods should be deimplemented. A focused interdisciplinary, multifaceted program is needed to deimplement auscultation practice for adult feeding tubes.