PDF icon Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2025; 42(12): 1638-1646
DOI: 10.1055/a-2522-1708
Original Article

Managing Home Oxygen and Nasogastric Feeds Post-NICU Discharge: PCP Practices and Perspectives

Lauren A. Beard
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Blair W. Weikel
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Kathleen E. Hannan
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Amanda I. Messinger
2   Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
,
Stephanie L. Bourque 
1   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available ateRefHebammen
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective

NICU graduates are frequently technology dependent including home oxygen, pulse oximetry, and/or nasogastric (NG) feedings. Primary care provider (PCP) perceptions, practices, and barriers to managing these infants are not well described, especially at altitude. We sought to 1) describe PCP comfort and 2) determine practices and barriers in managing this technology at higher altitudes.

Study Design

This cross-sectional survey assessed Colorado and Wyoming PCP perceptions and practices surrounding technology in NICU graduates. We explored bivariate analysis between clinic altitude, location, and provider's experience with comfort caring for infants discharged with technology using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. Significant relationships were modeled using logistic regression for odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Among 203 respondents, 82% were pediatricians, and 86% practiced in urban/suburban environments. Clinic altitude ranged 2,500–9,000 ft. PCPs endorsed comfort managing oxygen in term (92%) and moderately/late preterm infants (82%), versus 52% comfort in very/extremely preterm infants. 62% utilized an oxygen-weaning algorithm. Comfort managing oxygen was greater in suburban versus urban locations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–11.7) and providers practicing for >10 versus <5 years (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.5, 8.4). 60% found pulse oximetry useful, though 70% perceived caregiver stress. 69% accepted infants on NG feeds, though 61% endorsed discomfort with management.

Conclusion

PCPs are comfortable managing home oxygen in moderately preterm to term infants but find caring for most preterm infants challenging. Discomfort in managing NG feeds is prevalent. This highlights peridischarge barriers and improvement opportunities for high-risk, technology-dependent infants.

Key Points

  • PCPs are uncomfortable managing very/extremely preterm infants on home oxygen after NICU discharge.

  • PCPs perceive frequent commercial pulse oximetry use in NICU graduates.

  • Most PCPs are uncomfortable managing home NG feedings.

Keywords

neonatology - NICU discharge - home oxygen therapy - feeding difficulties - home pulse oximetry

Authors' Contributions

L.A.B. conceptualized and designed the study, recruited participants, led data collection, analysis, and interpretation, drafted the initial manuscript, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript. B.W.W. provided data analysis design and execution, led data collection, analysis, and interpretation, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript. K.E.H. provided feedback on the study design, participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript. A.I.M. provided feedback on the study design, participated in data interpretation, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript. S.L.B. conceptualized and designed the study, recruited participants, participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 21 November 2024

Accepted: 21 January 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 January 2025

Article published online:
14 February 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA