Background
Little is known about the risk to patients’ health when using home‐prepared enteral tube feeding. The objective of this study was to explore the differences in hygiene conditions and microbial load of different types of home‐prepared enteral tube feeding and explore associations between those differences and food handlers’ characteristics.
Methods
We evaluated 96 enteral formulations, considering 3 types used by adult patients: homemade enteral preparations (HEPs), blended enteral preparations (BEPs), and commercial enteral formulas (CEFs). Enteral formulations were collected from homes and microbiologically analyzed. Hygiene criteria were assessed using a checklist, applied during the handling stages. The profile of the food handler was reviewed using a questionnaire.
Results
82.3% (79/96) exceeded acceptable bacterial counts, which was 10³ colony‐forming units per gram for aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and for total coliforms (35 °C), Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus sp, and Staphylococcus coagulase‐positive, if present in the enteral formulations. The number of inadequate samples was higher in HEPs and BEPs than in CEFs. Considering the hygiene criteria, the home‐prepared enteral tube feedings did not differ significantly. There was a significant difference among hygiene conditions considering the variables “monthly family income” and “food training.”
Conclusion
Regardless of the type of enteral formulations used by patients, when handled at home, there was a risk of contamination. However, contaminants present in enteral formulations can be easily controlled with improvements in hygiene measures as well as with greater guidance and control during the handling stages.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.