The intravenous care prevalence study

The intravenous care prevalence study Pages e58-e59 S. Schweon, L. Lefevers, D. Sabol Close Close preview | Purchase PDF (55 K) | Related articles | Related reference work articles AbstractAbstract BACKGROUND: The use of peripheral and central intravenous (IV) catheters, though needed to provide medical treatments, can put patients at risk for the development of local site infections, bacteremia, thrombophlebitis, and other serious complications. An increase of peripheral IV site infections led to the implementation of the annual adult IV care prevalence study. The primary study goal is to assess if IV care conforms to hospital policy. METHODS: The coordinator of infection control and prevention and the manager of the infusion center collaborated to devise a worksheet that compared our hospital IV care policies, based on CDC recommendations, to actual nursing practice. Variables measured included the assessment/age of the insertion site, dating/type of dressing, medication identification/labeling at the “Y” insertion site, labels on the administration bag/bottles, and whether the patient is wearing an identification bracelet. The patient care manager or designee is given notice just prior to the start of the unannounced study, and feedback is given at the completion. An instant response is given to the patientʹs nurse in case a serious problem is encountered. RESULTS: During 2004, 131 patients with 155 peripheral IVs and 55 patients with 60 central lines were assessed. No peripheral or central IV sites were infected. The central line dressing assessment revealed 50 sites (83%) with current dating, 9 sites (15%) without dating, and 1 site (2%) that was outdated. Two patients (3%) were not wearing identification bracelets. The peripheral line dressing assessment revealed 87 sites (56%) <72 hours old, 4 sites (3%) >72 hours old, and 64 sites (41%) that were not dated. All patients were wearing their identification bracelets. An overall improvement in care is noted for both peripheral and central lines when compared to the 2003 findings. CONCLUSIONS: Areas of continual improvement include the need to date all dressings/infusion tubings, proper labeling of all bags/bottles and “Y” insertion site tubings, and efforts to ensure that patients wear an identification bracelet. The use of the annual IV care prevalence study has promoted a greater awareness at the bedside for the need to ensure IV care is being performed per policy. Patient care managers need to periodically monitor IV compliance and the wearing of the patient identification bracelet. Bedside change of shift report will help to improve policy adherence when IV sites are mutually assessed by nursing personnel.