Vein cannulation success rates by German paramedics: a single-centre study

Paulina Naklicka, L. Möckel, T. Hofmann
{"title":"Vein cannulation success rates by German paramedics: a single-centre study","authors":"Paulina Naklicka, L. Möckel, T. Hofmann","doi":"10.12968/ippr.2021.11.2.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gaining intravenous (IV) access is vulnerable to errors and failure, and this study analysed IV procedures by paramedics in the federal state of Hesse in Germany to examine these. This was a single-centre, observational, pilot study survey on gaining vascular access. As well as identifying the success and failure rate of IV attempts, factors associated with a higher risk of failure were analysed using logistic regression, Χ2 or Fisher's exact test. A total of 207 vascular access attempts were included in the analysis, of which 90.34% were successful. Significantly associated with higher risk of failure were patients' age (OR 1.05; 95% (CI 1.02–1.10); p=0.041), or when two (OR 3.94; 95% CI (2.39–6.20); p≤0.001) or more than three attempts (OR: 3.26 [95% CI: 1.35; 5.17]; p=0.003) were needed rather than one. In contrast, risk of failure was significantly lower when patients indicate a good (OR 0.02; 95% CI (0.00–0.15); p≤0.001) or moderate (OR 0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.17); p≤0.001) vein status compared to a bad vein status. Failure rates were higher when paramedics were working a night shift (OR 0.06; 95% CI (0.00–0.98); p=0.005) rather then during the day. A proportion of IV access attempts by paramedics are unsuccessful and, if paramedics are to provide invasive interventions, non-IV options for drug administration should be available.","PeriodicalId":158722,"journal":{"name":"International Paramedic Practice","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Paramedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/ippr.2021.11.2.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Gaining intravenous (IV) access is vulnerable to errors and failure, and this study analysed IV procedures by paramedics in the federal state of Hesse in Germany to examine these. This was a single-centre, observational, pilot study survey on gaining vascular access. As well as identifying the success and failure rate of IV attempts, factors associated with a higher risk of failure were analysed using logistic regression, Χ2 or Fisher's exact test. A total of 207 vascular access attempts were included in the analysis, of which 90.34% were successful. Significantly associated with higher risk of failure were patients' age (OR 1.05; 95% (CI 1.02–1.10); p=0.041), or when two (OR 3.94; 95% CI (2.39–6.20); p≤0.001) or more than three attempts (OR: 3.26 [95% CI: 1.35; 5.17]; p=0.003) were needed rather than one. In contrast, risk of failure was significantly lower when patients indicate a good (OR 0.02; 95% CI (0.00–0.15); p≤0.001) or moderate (OR 0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.17); p≤0.001) vein status compared to a bad vein status. Failure rates were higher when paramedics were working a night shift (OR 0.06; 95% CI (0.00–0.98); p=0.005) rather then during the day. A proportion of IV access attempts by paramedics are unsuccessful and, if paramedics are to provide invasive interventions, non-IV options for drug administration should be available.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国护理人员静脉插管成功率:一项单中心研究
获得静脉注射(IV)很容易出错和失败,本研究分析了德国黑森州护理人员的静脉注射程序来检查这些。这是一项关于获得血管通路的单中心、观察性、试点研究调查。除了确定静脉注射尝试的成功率和失败率外,还使用逻辑回归(Χ2)或Fisher精确检验(Fisher’s exact test)分析了与较高失败风险相关的因素。分析共纳入207例血管通路尝试,成功率为90.34%。与失败风险显著相关的是患者的年龄(OR 1.05;95% (ci 1.02-1.10);p=0.041),或当两个(or 3.94;95% ci (2.39-6.20);p≤0.001)或超过三次尝试(or: 3.26 [95% CI: 1.35;5.17);P =0.003),而不是1。相比之下,当患者表示良好时,失败的风险显着降低(OR 0.02;95% ci (0.00-0.15);p≤0.001)或中度(or 0.04 (95% CI 0.01-0.17);P≤0.001)静脉状态与不良静脉状态比较。当护理人员上夜班时,失败率更高(OR 0.06;95% ci (0.00-0.98);P =0.005)而不是在白天。护理人员尝试静脉注射的比例是不成功的,如果护理人员要提供侵入性干预,应提供非静脉注射药物的选择。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Out-of-hospital care for postpartum haemorrhage: a scoping review protocol Technology commitment of emergency medical service practitioners and dispatchers Accreditor and employer experiences of emergency care CPD provision On the move Is a fever always a fever? Early assessment of malaria for the remote paramedic
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1