CE Article: Use of an Evidence-Based Protocol for Repositioning Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) in Children and AdultsCE

Q3 Medicine
J. Mesa, Amalyn Mejia, Gareth Tiu
{"title":"CE Article: Use of an Evidence-Based Protocol for Repositioning Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) in Children and AdultsCE","authors":"J. Mesa, Amalyn Mejia, Gareth Tiu","doi":"10.2309/JAVA-D-19-00016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \n \n Introduction: Achieving and maintaining optimal peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) tip position can be challenging. At any time during therapies, the final catheter position can be altered due to changes in patient condition and intrathoracic pressure.\n Aim: To determine if the use of a standardized protocol with power flush option for repositioning the PICC tips will reduce the number of withdrawal interventions or exchange procedures.\n Methods: Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice (EBP) methodology was used to evaluate literature published in the past 5 years. A standardized protocol was developed and implemented in patients with malpositioned PICCs. The outcome measures were the successful repositioning of the catheter and costs for the procedure.\n Results: In 4 months, 43 (93%) of 46 (14 adult/32 pediatric) catheters were successfully repositioned. The withdrawal method was used to reposition 34 (73.9%). In 12 patients where a power flush was used, 9 (75%) were successfully repositioned. These changes resulted in decreased delays in treatment and financial savings of $235,210 in personnel time and supplies.\n Discussion: The standardized protocol provided an alternative to previous practices, extending dwell time, decreasing treatment delay, and unnecessary procedures, showing significant savings for the institution.\n Conclusions: The Vascular Access Team use of an evidence-based protocol was successful in reducing catheter exchange and withdrawals in malpositioned catheters among adult and pediatric populations.\n Relevance to Clinical Practice: The implementation of a standardized EBP to address malpositioned catheters resulted in the decreased need for catheter exchange, reduced delays in treatment, and cost savings.\n","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":"8 1","pages":"6-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2309/JAVA-D-19-00016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Achieving and maintaining optimal peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) tip position can be challenging. At any time during therapies, the final catheter position can be altered due to changes in patient condition and intrathoracic pressure. Aim: To determine if the use of a standardized protocol with power flush option for repositioning the PICC tips will reduce the number of withdrawal interventions or exchange procedures. Methods: Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice (EBP) methodology was used to evaluate literature published in the past 5 years. A standardized protocol was developed and implemented in patients with malpositioned PICCs. The outcome measures were the successful repositioning of the catheter and costs for the procedure. Results: In 4 months, 43 (93%) of 46 (14 adult/32 pediatric) catheters were successfully repositioned. The withdrawal method was used to reposition 34 (73.9%). In 12 patients where a power flush was used, 9 (75%) were successfully repositioned. These changes resulted in decreased delays in treatment and financial savings of $235,210 in personnel time and supplies. Discussion: The standardized protocol provided an alternative to previous practices, extending dwell time, decreasing treatment delay, and unnecessary procedures, showing significant savings for the institution. Conclusions: The Vascular Access Team use of an evidence-based protocol was successful in reducing catheter exchange and withdrawals in malpositioned catheters among adult and pediatric populations. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The implementation of a standardized EBP to address malpositioned catheters resulted in the decreased need for catheter exchange, reduced delays in treatment, and cost savings.
文章:在儿童和成人CE中使用循证方案重新定位外周插入中心导管(PICCs)
简介:实现和维持最佳的外周插入中心导管(PICC)尖端位置可能具有挑战性。在治疗过程中的任何时候,由于患者病情和胸内压力的变化,最终导管的位置都可能改变。目的:确定使用带电源冲洗选项的标准化方案重新定位PICC提示是否会减少提取干预或交换程序的数量。方法:采用约翰霍普金斯循证实践(EBP)方法对近5年发表的文献进行评价。制定并实施了一项标准化方案,用于定位不当的picc患者。结果测量是导管重新定位成功和手术费用。结果:在4个月内,46根(成人14根/儿童32根)导管中43根(93%)成功复位。采用撤回法重新定位34只(73.9%)。在12例使用强力冲洗的患者中,9例(75%)成功复位。这些改变减少了治疗延误,并在人员时间和用品方面节省了235 210美元。讨论:标准化方案为以前的实践提供了替代方案,延长了停留时间,减少了治疗延误和不必要的程序,为机构节省了大量费用。结论:血管准入小组使用循证方案成功地减少了成人和儿童人群中置管错位的导管更换和拔管。与临床实践的相关性:实施标准化的EBP来解决导管错位问题,减少了导管更换的需求,减少了治疗延误,节省了成本。
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
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
×
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