Journal of hospital medicine · 2013
Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge regarding peripherally inserted central catheters: results of a national survey.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Chopra Vineet, Kuhn Latoya, Flanders Scott A, Saint Sanjay, Krein Sarah L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A Michigan survey found variation in hospitalist-reported experience, practice, opinions, and knowledge related to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether these findings reflect a national trend is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate self-reported PICC practice among adult hospitalists in the United States.
METHODS: Society of Hospital Medicine-administered, anonymous, Web-based survey of practicing, adult, non-Michigan hospitalists.
RESULTS: Of the 2112 hospitalists who were sent an electronic invitation, 381 completed the online survey (18%). Eighty-six percent of hospitalists reported having placed a PICC solely for venous access (vs specific indications such as long-term antibiotics or parenteral nutrition). Eighty-two percent reported having cared for a patient who specifically requested a PICC. Only 25% of hospitalists reported examining PICCs for evidence of external problems, whereas 57% admitted to having, at least once, forgotten about the presence of a PICC. Only 9% of respondents knew that PICC tip verification was performed primarily to prevent venous thromboembolism. Finally, 42% of participants indicated that 10% to 25% of PICCs placed in their hospitals might be inappropriately placed and/or avoidable.
CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights several potential opportunities to improve hospitalist PICC practices. A research agenda dedicated to this issue is necessary to improve patient safety and hospital-based practice.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate self-reported PICC practice among adult hospitalists in the United States.
METHODS: Society of Hospital Medicine-administered, anonymous, Web-based survey of practicing, adult, non-Michigan hospitalists.
RESULTS: Of the 2112 hospitalists who were sent an electronic invitation, 381 completed the online survey (18%). Eighty-six percent of hospitalists reported having placed a PICC solely for venous access (vs specific indications such as long-term antibiotics or parenteral nutrition). Eighty-two percent reported having cared for a patient who specifically requested a PICC. Only 25% of hospitalists reported examining PICCs for evidence of external problems, whereas 57% admitted to having, at least once, forgotten about the presence of a PICC. Only 9% of respondents knew that PICC tip verification was performed primarily to prevent venous thromboembolism. Finally, 42% of participants indicated that 10% to 25% of PICCs placed in their hospitals might be inappropriately placed and/or avoidable.
CONCLUSIONS: This national survey highlights several potential opportunities to improve hospitalist PICC practices. A research agenda dedicated to this issue is necessary to improve patient safety and hospital-based practice.