Clinician satisfaction and preference for central venous catheter systems promoting patient safety, ease-of-use and reduced clinician error.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Robert Wagner, Kimberly Alsbrooks, Erin Bacon, Matthew O'Brien, Klaus Hoerauf
{"title":"Clinician satisfaction and preference for central venous catheter systems promoting patient safety, ease-of-use and reduced clinician error.","authors":"Robert Wagner,&nbsp;Kimberly Alsbrooks,&nbsp;Erin Bacon,&nbsp;Matthew O'Brien,&nbsp;Klaus Hoerauf","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2219001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Central venous catheters (CVC) are frequently utilized with limited data on user preferences. A simulation/survey-based study was conducted among anesthesia providers to evaluate attitudes toward general CVC system attributes, and satisfaction with elements of the most-commonly used and a novel CVC system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty providers completed a simulation using both CVC systems and a 29-item questionnaire, including multiple-choice, free-text, ranking, and Likert-like questions. Ranking scores were reported using a scale of 0 (least important/satisfactory) to 100 (most important/satisfactory). Statistical significances were evaluated via Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants chose (mean±SD) patient safety (83.9 ± 25.3), ease-of-use (64.6 ± 26.1), and reduced risk for error (61.1 ± 26.7) as the most important attributes when considering a CVC system. Satisfaction levels were significantly higher for the novel system: overall (<i>p</i> < 0.001), its ease-of-use (<i>p</i> < 0.001), tray layout/design (<i>p</i> < 0.001), and safety (<i>p</i> = 0.012). Mean satisfaction scores were significantly higher for the novel system's potential to reduce 5 of 7 common issues, including clinician error (<i>p</i> < 0.001), and contamination/infection (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anesthesia providers preferred CVC systems promoting patient safety, ease-of-use and reduce clinician error. Significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) satisfaction scores were awarded to a novel system featuring a sequentially organized tray, enhanced labeling, and a guidewire funnel.</p>","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":"20 7","pages":"607-614"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2219001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Central venous catheters (CVC) are frequently utilized with limited data on user preferences. A simulation/survey-based study was conducted among anesthesia providers to evaluate attitudes toward general CVC system attributes, and satisfaction with elements of the most-commonly used and a novel CVC system.

Methods: Forty providers completed a simulation using both CVC systems and a 29-item questionnaire, including multiple-choice, free-text, ranking, and Likert-like questions. Ranking scores were reported using a scale of 0 (least important/satisfactory) to 100 (most important/satisfactory). Statistical significances were evaluated via Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test.

Results: Participants chose (mean±SD) patient safety (83.9 ± 25.3), ease-of-use (64.6 ± 26.1), and reduced risk for error (61.1 ± 26.7) as the most important attributes when considering a CVC system. Satisfaction levels were significantly higher for the novel system: overall (p < 0.001), its ease-of-use (p < 0.001), tray layout/design (p < 0.001), and safety (p = 0.012). Mean satisfaction scores were significantly higher for the novel system's potential to reduce 5 of 7 common issues, including clinician error (p < 0.001), and contamination/infection (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Anesthesia providers preferred CVC systems promoting patient safety, ease-of-use and reduce clinician error. Significantly higher (p < 0.05) satisfaction scores were awarded to a novel system featuring a sequentially organized tray, enhanced labeling, and a guidewire funnel.

临床医生对中心静脉导管系统的满意度和偏好促进了患者的安全性,易用性和减少了临床医生的错误。
目的:中心静脉导管(CVC)经常被使用,但关于用户偏好的数据有限。在麻醉提供者中进行了一项基于模拟/调查的研究,以评估对一般CVC系统属性的态度,以及对最常用和新型CVC系统元素的满意度。方法:40名提供者使用CVC系统和29项问卷完成模拟,包括多项选择、自由文本、排名和李克特样问题。排名分数用0(最不重要/满意)到100(最重要/满意)的等级报告。采用Wilcoxon符号秩和检验评价统计学显著性。结果:在考虑CVC系统时,参与者选择(mean±SD)患者安全性(83.9±25.3)、易用性(64.6±26.1)和降低错误风险(61.1±26.7)作为最重要的属性。总体而言,新系统的满意度明显更高(p p p p = 0.012)。新系统减少了7个常见问题中的5个,包括临床医生错误(p),平均满意度得分显著提高。结论:麻醉提供者首选CVC系统,促进患者安全,易于使用,减少临床医生错误。显著升高(p)
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
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.
×
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