Infusion Therapy Team and Dressing Changes of Central Venous Catheters

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (02) ◽  
pp. 101-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dima Abi-Said ◽  
Issam Raad ◽  
Jan Umphrey ◽  
Virginia Gonzalez ◽  
Deborah Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Infection Risk ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Infusion Therapy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Related Infection ◽  
Therapy Team

AbstractObjective:To determine whether central venous catheter (CVC) dressing changes could be performed by ward nurses rather than by the infusion therapy team (ITT) nurses without increasing the risk of catheter-related infection.Design:Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. The study extended from January 1995 to June 1996.Setting:The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, a referral cancer center.Patients:The study group was a random sample of 483 patients who received CVC dressing changes by ward nurses during the study period. A random sample of 483 patients who received CVC dressing changes by the ITT constituted the control group.Results:The risks of catheter-related septicemia were 1.7% among cases and 1.4% among controls (risk ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 0.26-6.42;P=.70). There also were no significant differences between the two groups in the risks of catheter-related site infection (risk ratio, 0.50; CI95, 0.02-4.12;P=.25) or any catheter-related infection (risk ratio=1.00; CI95, 0.27-3.64;P=.59).Conclusions:Provided that aseptic techniques (including maximal barrier precautions during insertion) are maintained, the responsibility of CVC dressing changes could be delegated to the ward nurses without increasing the low risk of CVC-related infection, resulting in an estimated cost saving in excess of $90,000 per year.

Needle-free connectors to prevent central venous catheter occlusion at a tertiary cardiac center: A prospective before and after intervention study

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982110396
Author(s):  
Andrea Sansalone ◽  
Raffaello Vicari ◽  
Fabio Orlando ◽  
Alessandro Dell’Avo ◽  
Silvia Giuffrida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Intervention Study ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Infusion Therapy ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Before And After

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of needle-free connectors to maintain Central Venous Catheter—CVC patency. Background: Loss of patency is a common complication associated with CVC. For patients, this can be stressful and painful, and can result in a delay in infusion therapy. Pressure-activated anti-reflux needle-free connectors are one of the most modern devices; however, no studies have compared this connector with the open-system three-way stopcock in terms of the incidence of CVC occlusion. Methods: This study is a prospective before and after intervention study. From March to August 2018, an observation phase was conducted with the three-way stopcock as the standard central venous catheter hub and closure system (phase 1). After implementation of needle-free connectors (phase 2), post-intervention observations were made from September 2019 to January 2020 (phase 3). Results: Of 199 CVCs analyzed, 41.2% (40/97) occluded in at least one lumen in the first phase, and 13.7% (14/102) occluded after introducing the technological device, absolute risk reduction 27.5% (95% confidence interval 15.6%–39.4%). The lumens supported by needle-free connectors showed a higher probability of maintaining patency compared with three-way stopcocks. No differences were observed in the rate of infection. Conclusions: Pressure-activated anti-reflux needle-free connectors are effective and safe devices suitable for the management of vascular access in cardiac patient care. Staff training, even on apparently simple devices, is essential to avoid the risk of infection.

scholarly journals Tunnelled central venous catheter-related infection in cardiothoracic critical care

Critical Care ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. P80
Author(s):  
J Mitchell ◽  
P Shetty ◽  
F Cox ◽  
P Vuddamalay
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Related Infection

Increased Incidence of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infection in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intra-Peritoneal Chemotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 465-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peadar S. Waters ◽  
Andrew W. Smith ◽  
Emer Fitzgerald ◽  
Faraz Khan ◽  
Brendan J. Moran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Related Infection

scholarly journals Positive effect of care bundles on patients with central venous catheter insertions at a tertiary hospital in Beijing, China

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052094211
Author(s):  
Yuling Sun ◽  
Zhongying Bao ◽  
Yang Guo ◽  
Xiaodong Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Scale Score ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Psychological State ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Case Group ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Care Bundles ◽  
Self Rating ◽  
Crbsi Rate

Objective This study was performed to evaluate the effect of care bundles on the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and improvement of patients’ experience. Methods In total, 212 patients with central venous catheter insertions were enrolled in this study. All patients were matched by sex, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, body mass index, department, and catheter insertion site and were randomly divided into case and control groups (n = 106 each). The control group was given conventional care, and the case group was given care bundles including nurse education, hand hygiene, maximal sterile barrier precautions, bedside observation, and evaluation. The anxiety scores, hospitalization days, CRBSI rate, and degree of satisfaction with hospitalization were compared between the two groups. Results The patients’ mean self-rating anxiety scale score and self-rating depression scale score after nursing intervention were significantly lower in the case group than in the control group. The mean number of hospitalization days and CRBSI rate were significantly lower and the satisfaction rate was significantly higher in the case group. Conclusion Care bundles are essential for preventing CRBSI. They can improve patients’ psychological state and hospitalization satisfaction and reduce the hospitalization days.

scholarly journals Bundle Approach to Reduce Bloodstream Infections in Neutropenic Hematologic

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 474
Author(s):  
Jose Manuel Martinez ◽  
Luís Leite ◽  
Daniela França ◽  
Rita Capela ◽  
Luísa Viterbo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Central Venous

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> The objective of the study was to reduce, by a bundle of interventions, the global bloodstream infections and catheterrelated bloodstream infections rates in neutropenic hematology patients with a long-term central venous catheter.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> This was a non-randomized prospective study. It was conducted in a 20-bed hematology oncology unit (Portuguese Institute of Oncology, Porto, Portugal) between 1st of August 2010 and 31st of January 2012. In this period we introduced a bundle of interventions (study group) and compared the results with the six months prior to implementation (control group). The interventions consisted in the use of a neutral pressure mechanical valve connector instead of a positive pressure mechanical valve connector, a more frequent change of this connector and a more efficient clean solution. One hundred and sixteen hematology patients with a long-term central venous catheter at time superior of 72 h, with 8 867 central venous catheter days [6 756 central venous catheter days in the study group and 2 111 central venous catheter days in the control group] were included in the study.<br /><strong>Results:</strong> A significant reduction in bloodstream infections rates and catheter-related bloodstream infections rates was achieved. Bloodstream infections rates: [32.69 (control group) vs. 9.43 (study group)], incidence reduction 71% [relative risk 0.2886, CI 95% (0.1793 – 0.4647), p &lt; 0.001] and catheter-related bloodstream infections rates: [17.53 (control group) vs. 4.73 (study group)], incidence reduction 71% [relative risk 0.2936, CI 95% (0.1793 – 0.5615), p &lt; 0.014]. No significant difference (p &gt; 0.05) was found in the neutrophil count at the time of blood culture samples between groups: 69% (&lt; 500 neutrophils/mm3) [71% (study group) vs. 68% (control group)].<br /><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The introduction of this bundle of interventions based on the variables of patient, product and practice, supported by the Healthcare and Technology Synergy framework, quickly resulted in a significant reduction of bloodstream infections and catheterrelated bloodstream infections rates.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document