Background: Along with the challenges to strengthen patient safety in the use of short peripheral catheters (SPCs), various studies have been conducted in the past to explore differences between two main types of SPCs—integrated SPC (ISPC) and simple SPC (SSPC) in terms of clinical performance. The accumulated evidence from the literature lean toward the benefits of ISPC use in preventing complications leading to longer dwell time and more economical savings than SSPC use. The study aimed to compare ISPC and SSPC in terms of first-attempt successful insertions, number of attempts before successful insertion, perceived ease of insertion, dwell time, reinsertion rate, reasons for removal, and costs of supplies used for the insertions. Furthermore, it aimed to verify whether the previous results of referenced work in the use of ISPC were similar, and its use provided more foreseeable benefit for patient safety and cost-efficiency. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in a 650-bed tertiary academic medical center in the Philippines. Eligible participants were adult patients who were required SPC for at least 72 h by the physician. Using inferential statistics, comparisons were done among adult patients with integrated ( n = 350) and simple ( n = 350) SPC. Comparisons were also made according to insertion site and gauge of SPC. Results: The successful first-attempt insertions did not vary significantly at around 80% in both groups ( p = 0.428). No significant differences were found in terms of attempts before successful insertion ( p = 0.677), dwell time ( p = 0.144), reinsertions ( p = 0.934), and reasons for removal ( p = 0.424). Meanwhile, comparable differences were noted in terms of perceived ease of insertion ( p < 0.001) and cost of supplies used during the insertions ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: ISPCs can yield the same results with that of SSPCs while being easier to use and less costly.
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Telemedicine Services in an Academic Medical Center
