Simulation-based mastery learning reduces complications during central venous catheter insertion in a medical intensive care unit*

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 2697-2701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Barsuk ◽  
William C. McGaghie ◽  
Elaine R. Cohen ◽  
Kevin J. O’Leary ◽  
Diane B. Wayne
2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110533
Author(s):  
Lara M. Groetzinger ◽  
Julia Williams ◽  
Susan Svec ◽  
Michael P. Donahoe ◽  
Phillip E. Lamberty ◽  
...  

Background: Reducing central venous catheter (CVC) utilization can reduce complications in the intensive care unit (ICU). While norepinephrine (NE) is traditionally administered via a CVC, lower concentrations may be safely administered via peripheral intravenous (PIV) lines. Objective: We aimed to describe the implementation of a pilot protocol utilizing PIVs to administer a low-dose and lower-concentration NE, review the number of CVCs avoided, and evaluate any adverse events. Methods: In a quaternary medical intensive care unit (MICU), from March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020, we reviewed charts for CVC placement and adverse events from the pNE infusion. We also measured unit-level CVC utilization in all MICU patients and assessed the change in utilization associated with the peripheral norepinephrine (pNE) protocol. Results: Over a 1-year period, 87 patients received a pNE infusion. Overall, 44 patients (51%) never required CVC placement during their MICU stay. Three patients (3%) experienced adverse events, none of which were documented as serious and or required antidote for treatment. Implementation of the protocol was associated with a decrease in the number of patients at the unit level who received CVCs, even if they did not receive pNE. Conclusion and Relevance: In this small pilot study, we pragmatically demonstrated that pNE is safe and may reduce the need for CVC placement. This information can be used to aid in pNE protocol development and implementation at other institutions, but further research should be done to confirm the safety of routine use of pNE in clinical practice.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Jorge Rodrigues ◽  
Andrea Dias ◽  
Guiomar Oliveira ◽  
José Farela Neves

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> To determine the central-line associated bloodstream infection rate after implementation of central venous catheter-care practice bundles and guidelines and to compare it with the previous central-line associated bloodstream infection rate.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> A prospective, longitudinal, observational descriptive study with an exploratory component was performed in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit during five months. The universe was composed of every child admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit who inserted a central venous catheter. A comparative study with historical controls was performed to evaluate the result of the intervention (group 1 <em>versus</em> group 2).<br /><strong>Results:</strong> Seventy five children were included, with a median age of 23 months: 22 (29.3%) newborns; 28 (37.3%) with recent surgery and 32 (43.8%) with underlying illness. A total of 105 central venous catheter were inserted, the majority a single central venous catheter (69.3%), with a mean duration of 6.8 ± 6.7 days. The most common type of central venous catheter was the short-term, non-tunneled central venous catheter (45.7%), while the subclavian and brachial flexure veins were the most frequent insertion sites (both 25.7%). There were no cases of central-line associated bloodstream infection reported during this study. Comparing with historical controls (group 1), both groups were similar regarding age, gender, department of origin and place of central venous catheter insertion. In the current study (group 2), the median length of stay was higher, while the mean duration of central venous catheter (excluding peripherally inserted central line) was similar in both groups. There were no statistical differences regarding central venous catheter caliber and number of lumens. Fewer children admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit had central venous catheter inserted in group 2, with no significant difference between single or multiple central venous catheter.<br /><strong>Discussion:</strong> After multidimensional strategy implementation there was no reported central-line associated bloodstream infection<br /><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Efforts must be made to preserve the same degree of multidimensional prevention, in order to confirm the effective reduction of the central-line associated bloodstream infection rate and to allow its maintenance.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document