Midline catheters – what could be done better? A retrospective evaluation of clinical registry

Maciej Latos, Bartosz Sadownik, Natalia Sak-Dankosky, Orest Stach, R. Becler, Aleksandra Barabasz, Maciej Małyszko, M. Zawadka, P. Andruszkiewicz, D. Kosson
{"title":"Midline catheters – what could be done better? A retrospective evaluation of clinical registry","authors":"Maciej Latos, Bartosz Sadownik, Natalia Sak-Dankosky, Orest Stach, R. Becler, Aleksandra Barabasz, Maciej Małyszko, M. Zawadka, P. Andruszkiewicz, D. Kosson","doi":"10.2478/pielxxiw-2023-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction. Midline catheters (MCs) are an option for vascular access alongside the commonly used short peripheral intravenous catheters, centrally and peripherally inserted central catheters. Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate the solution implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in a centre where MC access had not been used before. Material and method. It was an observational retrospective evaluation of the 98 medical registries of adult patients. Results. The mean time from hospital admission to midline catheter insertion was 15 days. The most common indications for the catheter implementation were: difficult intravenous access (83%) and expected time hospital stay >6 days (17%). The mean dwell time of the catheters was 9 days. The most common reasons for removal were: the end of intravenous therapy (44%) and catheter blockages (36%). Conclusions. A high level of prematurely removed catheters was observed, despite the existence of a hospital protocol. The high percentage of MCs removed before the end of intravenous therapy may be indicative of the poor quality of care and the need for continuous education of medical staff. The results obtained should be confi rmed in a prospective study planned on their basis in order to identify interventions which are necessary to improve the quality of vascular access care.","PeriodicalId":326203,"journal":{"name":"Pielegniarstwo XXI wieku / Nursing in the 21st Century","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pielegniarstwo XXI wieku / Nursing in the 21st Century","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/pielxxiw-2023-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Introduction. Midline catheters (MCs) are an option for vascular access alongside the commonly used short peripheral intravenous catheters, centrally and peripherally inserted central catheters. Aim. The aim of this study was to evaluate the solution implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in a centre where MC access had not been used before. Material and method. It was an observational retrospective evaluation of the 98 medical registries of adult patients. Results. The mean time from hospital admission to midline catheter insertion was 15 days. The most common indications for the catheter implementation were: difficult intravenous access (83%) and expected time hospital stay >6 days (17%). The mean dwell time of the catheters was 9 days. The most common reasons for removal were: the end of intravenous therapy (44%) and catheter blockages (36%). Conclusions. A high level of prematurely removed catheters was observed, despite the existence of a hospital protocol. The high percentage of MCs removed before the end of intravenous therapy may be indicative of the poor quality of care and the need for continuous education of medical staff. The results obtained should be confi rmed in a prospective study planned on their basis in order to identify interventions which are necessary to improve the quality of vascular access care.
中线导尿管,还有什么可以做得更好的?临床登记的回顾性评价
摘要介绍。中线导管(MCs)是血管通路的一种选择,与常用的短外周静脉导管,中央和周围插入的中心导管一起。的目标。本研究的目的是评估在COVID-19大流行期间在一个以前未使用MC通道的中心实施的解决方案。材料和方法。这是一项对98个成人患者医疗登记的观察性回顾性评价。结果。从入院到中线置管平均时间为15天。留置导管最常见的适应症是:静脉进入困难(83%)和预计住院时间6天(17%)。留置时间平均为9天。最常见的切除原因是:静脉治疗结束(44%)和导管堵塞(36%)。结论。尽管存在医院协议,但仍观察到大量过早拔除导管。在静脉注射治疗结束前移除MCs的比例很高,这可能表明护理质量较差,需要对医务人员进行继续教育。所获得的结果应在其基础上计划的前瞻性研究中得到证实,以便确定改善血管通路护理质量所必需的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信