Current medical research and opinion · 2012
Clinical acceptability and ease of use of a safety IV catheter system.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ruiz-Sternberg Angela, Velez-Van-Meerbeke Alberto, Ruiz-Sternberg Jaime
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Occupational risk of transmission of bloodborne pathogens represents a major challenge in prevention. Even though preventive recommendations to avoid needlestick injuries among healthcare workers include the use of needle protective devices, its use in developing countries is not a standard practice. This study aimed to measure, on experienced nurses, perception of performance characteristics and activation of the safety feature of a safety closed IV catheter system (BD Pegasus*), called catheter P, versus a non-safety device (BD Intima II † ) called catheter I in healthy volunteers.
METHOD: Fifty-two nurses and 205 healthy volunteers participated in a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a simulated setting. Each nurse performed two insertions of each catheter (one in each forearm) in four study volunteers; the order of insertions was randomly assigned. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the performance of the two catheters regarding Overall Perception of Clinical Acceptability and Ease of Use.
RESULTS: Overall acceptance of the device performance characteristics was 90% or more. In all cases, catheter P performed at least as well as catheter I. There were no differences in the insertion success rate between the two devices (93.7% vs. 96.2%). Activation of the safety feature of catheter P occurred 99.4%. Subjects' perception of pain was similar for both devices. Overall perception of clinical acceptability and ease of use were judged better for catheter P than for catheter I (p = 0.006, and p < 0.001 respectively). All clinicians strongly agreed that catheter P would protect them from needle stick injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the study limitations, mainly its artificial setting and its inability to blind, the results indicate that the Safety Closed IV Catheter System with its safety feature represents a good alternative for IV catheter insertions that can help reduce the incidence of stick injuries in health care workers.
METHOD: Fifty-two nurses and 205 healthy volunteers participated in a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a simulated setting. Each nurse performed two insertions of each catheter (one in each forearm) in four study volunteers; the order of insertions was randomly assigned. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the performance of the two catheters regarding Overall Perception of Clinical Acceptability and Ease of Use.
RESULTS: Overall acceptance of the device performance characteristics was 90% or more. In all cases, catheter P performed at least as well as catheter I. There were no differences in the insertion success rate between the two devices (93.7% vs. 96.2%). Activation of the safety feature of catheter P occurred 99.4%. Subjects' perception of pain was similar for both devices. Overall perception of clinical acceptability and ease of use were judged better for catheter P than for catheter I (p = 0.006, and p < 0.001 respectively). All clinicians strongly agreed that catheter P would protect them from needle stick injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the study limitations, mainly its artificial setting and its inability to blind, the results indicate that the Safety Closed IV Catheter System with its safety feature represents a good alternative for IV catheter insertions that can help reduce the incidence of stick injuries in health care workers.