International journal of nursing studies · 2006
Developing a Research base for Intravenous Peripheral cannula re-sites (DRIP trial). A randomised controlled trial of hospital in-patients.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Webster Joan, Lloyd Sophia, Hopkins Tracey, Osborne Sonya, Yaxley Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is currently no high grade evidence on which to base decisions about the frequency of intravenous cannula re-sites.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards.
INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost.
RESULTS: Forty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3h in the intervention group and 125.9h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006).
CONCLUSION: Re-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of changing peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and six hospitalised patients from surgical, medical and orthopaedic wards.
INTERVENTIONS: Peripheral intravenous cannulas were re-sited only when complications occurred (intervention group) or every 3 days (control group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was any unplanned cannula removal, the secondary outcome was cost.
RESULTS: Forty six patients had unplanned removals in the intervention group compared with 41 in the control group [relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.55 (p=0.286)], a non-significant difference. Total duration of peripheral cannulation was similar in both groups (mean 123.3h in the intervention group and 125.9h in the control group: P=0.82) but significantly more re-sites occurred in the control group (167 in intervention group, 202 in the control group: p=0.022). Cost of cannula replacements in the intervention group was AUD$3,183.62 and in the control group AUD$3,837.56 (p=0.006).
CONCLUSION: Re-siting peripheral venous cannulas when clinically indicated compared with changing them routinely every 3 days does not lead to more complications and reduces costs.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Catheterization, PeripheralCellulitisClinical Nursing ResearchCross InfectionEdemaEquipment FailureErythemaEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHospital CostsHumansInfection ControlInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedNursing AssessmentNursing Staff, HospitalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePainPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesQueenslandSafety ManagementTime FactorsWorkload