Clinician Acceptability of a Peripheral Intravenous Passive Safety Catheter with Blood Control: Practical Use Article

Jesson Yeh, Diana Valencia, Sue Ballek, Christopher R. Curtin, Allyson, Marshall-Hudson, Michael, Tuley, Angela, Karpf
{"title":"Clinician Acceptability of a Peripheral Intravenous Passive Safety Catheter with Blood Control: Practical Use Article","authors":"Jesson Yeh, Diana Valencia, Sue Ballek, Christopher R. Curtin, Allyson, Marshall-Hudson, Michael, Tuley, Angela, Karpf","doi":"10.2309/java-d-23-00003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highlights Abstract Aim: Acceptability, usability, and overall ease of use of a safety engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with blood control septum (PIVCBC) were evaluated among clinicians who frequently use peripherally inserted intravenous catheters (PIVCs). This study was conducted in healthy subjects at a Phase 1 facility. Methods: Participating clinicians were ≥18 years of age, employed in a clinical setting, and performed ≥3 PIVC insertions per week. Each clinician completed 6 PIVCBC procedures on 2 to 4 healthy human subjects. Multiple trained observers documented how many attempts it took for the clinician to get a successful stick and what vein was selected for the procedure. Clinicians responded to yes/no questions and to Likert scale statements, describing their experiences with the PIVCBC after the procedures. Video recordings were used to observe procedures. Questionnaire data was summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics. Results: Clinician agreement ranged from 83% to 97% for: able to observe primary and secondary flashbacks, able to use their regular PIVC insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, able to easily remove the needle from the catheter hub, believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion, and able to flush the catheter. Overall, 96.7% of the clinicians found the PIVCBC to be acceptable. Conclusions: Overall, the PIVCBC was acceptable, easy to use, and allowed clinicians to maintain their usual PIVC insertion technique while they felt protected from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter.","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","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-23-00003","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

Highlights Abstract Aim: Acceptability, usability, and overall ease of use of a safety engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with blood control septum (PIVCBC) were evaluated among clinicians who frequently use peripherally inserted intravenous catheters (PIVCs). This study was conducted in healthy subjects at a Phase 1 facility. Methods: Participating clinicians were ≥18 years of age, employed in a clinical setting, and performed ≥3 PIVC insertions per week. Each clinician completed 6 PIVCBC procedures on 2 to 4 healthy human subjects. Multiple trained observers documented how many attempts it took for the clinician to get a successful stick and what vein was selected for the procedure. Clinicians responded to yes/no questions and to Likert scale statements, describing their experiences with the PIVCBC after the procedures. Video recordings were used to observe procedures. Questionnaire data was summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics. Results: Clinician agreement ranged from 83% to 97% for: able to observe primary and secondary flashbacks, able to use their regular PIVC insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, able to easily remove the needle from the catheter hub, believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion, and able to flush the catheter. Overall, 96.7% of the clinicians found the PIVCBC to be acceptable. Conclusions: Overall, the PIVCBC was acceptable, easy to use, and allowed clinicians to maintain their usual PIVC insertion technique while they felt protected from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter.
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
临床医生接受外周静脉被动安全导管与血液控制:实际应用文章
摘要目的:在经常使用外周静脉导管(pivc)的临床医生中,评估安全工程外周静脉导管伴血控隔(PIVCBC)的可接受性、可用性和总体易用性。本研究在健康受试者中进行。方法:参与的临床医生年龄≥18岁,在临床环境中工作,每周进行≥3次PIVC插入。每位临床医生对2 - 4名健康受试者完成6次PIVCBC手术。多名训练有素的观察员记录了临床医生需要多少次尝试才能成功地获得一根棍子,以及选择了哪些静脉进行手术。临床医生回答是/否问题和李克特量表陈述,描述他们在手术后使用PIVCBC的经历。录像用于观察程序。问卷数据按回答频率和百分比汇总;采用二项统计进行分析。结果:能够观察到原发性和继发性闪回,能够使用他们常规的PIVC插入技术,发现导管易于插入,能够轻松地从导管中心拔出针头,相信导管在插入过程中可以保护他们免受血液暴露,并且能够冲洗导管,临床医生的满意率为83%至97%。总体而言,96.7%的临床医生认为PIVCBC是可以接受的。结论:总体而言,PIVCBC是可接受的,易于使用,并允许临床医生维持他们通常的PIVC插入技术,同时他们感觉在插入导管时不会暴露血液。
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
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.
期刊最新文献
Care Bundles and Peripheral Arterial Catheters: A Scoping Review The Difference between Quality Improvement and Human Subject Research: Foundational Support Unsafe: Sutures as an Unnecessary Risk for Clinicians and Patients: Editor’s Message President’s Message 2022 Association for Vascular Access Scientific Meeting: Poster Abstracts
×
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