Radiopharmaceutical administration practices—Are they best practice?

Stephen Harris, James R. Crowley, Nancy Warden
{"title":"Radiopharmaceutical administration practices—Are they best practice?","authors":"Stephen Harris, James R. Crowley, Nancy Warden","doi":"10.3389/fnume.2023.1244660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The nuclear medicine community has stated that they are using best practices to gain venous access and administer radiopharmaceuticals, and therefore do not contribute to extravasations. We tested this hypothesis qualitatively and quantitatively by evaluating four different perspectives of current radiopharmaceutical administration practices: (1) clinical observations of nuclear medicine technologists on the job, (2) quality improvement (QI) projects, (3) a high-level survey of current practices in 10 acute care hospitals, (4) intravenous (IV) access site data for 29,343 procedures. These four areas were compared to the gold standard of pharmaceutical administration techniques. Results From clinical observations of radiopharmaceutical administrations in adult populations, technologists extensively used 24-gauge peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) and butterfly needles. They also performed direct puncture (straight stick). Technologists predominantly chose veins in areas of flexion (hand, wrist, and antecubital fossa), rather than forearm vessels for IV access placement; in many circumstances, antecubital fossa vessels are chosen first, often without prior assessment for other suitable vessels. For selecting the injection vein, technologists sometimes used infrared vein finders but primarily performed blind sticks. Review of QI projects suggested that smaller gauge needles were contributing factors to extravasations. Additionally, the review of surveys from 10 hospitals revealed an absence of formalized protocols, training, knowledge, and skills necessary to ensure the safety/patency of IV devices prior to the administration of radiopharmaceuticals. Finally, findings from a review of IV access data for 29,343 procedures supported the observations described above. Conclusions We expect that nuclear medicine technologists have the best intentions when providing patient care, but many do not follow venous access best practices; they lack formal protocols, have not received the latest comprehensive training, and do not use the best placement tools and monitoring equipment. Thus, the presumption that most nuclear medicine technologists use best practices may not be accurate. In order to improve radiopharmaceutical administration and patient care, the nuclear medicine community should update technical standards to address the most recent peripheral IV access and administration best practices, provide technologists with vascular visualization tools and the proper training, develop and require annual vascular access competency, and provide active monitoring with center and patient-specific data to create ongoing feedback.","PeriodicalId":73095,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in nuclear medicine (Lausanne, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnume.2023.1244660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The nuclear medicine community has stated that they are using best practices to gain venous access and administer radiopharmaceuticals, and therefore do not contribute to extravasations. We tested this hypothesis qualitatively and quantitatively by evaluating four different perspectives of current radiopharmaceutical administration practices: (1) clinical observations of nuclear medicine technologists on the job, (2) quality improvement (QI) projects, (3) a high-level survey of current practices in 10 acute care hospitals, (4) intravenous (IV) access site data for 29,343 procedures. These four areas were compared to the gold standard of pharmaceutical administration techniques. Results From clinical observations of radiopharmaceutical administrations in adult populations, technologists extensively used 24-gauge peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) and butterfly needles. They also performed direct puncture (straight stick). Technologists predominantly chose veins in areas of flexion (hand, wrist, and antecubital fossa), rather than forearm vessels for IV access placement; in many circumstances, antecubital fossa vessels are chosen first, often without prior assessment for other suitable vessels. For selecting the injection vein, technologists sometimes used infrared vein finders but primarily performed blind sticks. Review of QI projects suggested that smaller gauge needles were contributing factors to extravasations. Additionally, the review of surveys from 10 hospitals revealed an absence of formalized protocols, training, knowledge, and skills necessary to ensure the safety/patency of IV devices prior to the administration of radiopharmaceuticals. Finally, findings from a review of IV access data for 29,343 procedures supported the observations described above. Conclusions We expect that nuclear medicine technologists have the best intentions when providing patient care, but many do not follow venous access best practices; they lack formal protocols, have not received the latest comprehensive training, and do not use the best placement tools and monitoring equipment. Thus, the presumption that most nuclear medicine technologists use best practices may not be accurate. In order to improve radiopharmaceutical administration and patient care, the nuclear medicine community should update technical standards to address the most recent peripheral IV access and administration best practices, provide technologists with vascular visualization tools and the proper training, develop and require annual vascular access competency, and provide active monitoring with center and patient-specific data to create ongoing feedback.
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
放射性药物管理规范-它们是最佳规范吗?
核医学界已经声明,他们正在使用最佳做法来获得静脉通路和管理放射性药物,因此不会导致外渗。我们通过评估当前放射性药物管理实践的四个不同视角,定性和定量地检验了这一假设:(1)在职核医学技术人员的临床观察,(2)质量改进(QI)项目,(3)对10家急症护理医院当前实践的高层调查,(4)29,343例手术的静脉注射(IV)访问现场数据。将这四个方面与药事管理技术的金标准进行了比较。结果从成人放射性药物给药的临床观察来看,技术人员广泛使用24号外周静脉导管(pivc)和蝴蝶针。他们还进行了直接穿刺(直棒)。技术人员主要选择屈曲部位的静脉(手、手腕和肘前窝),而不是前臂血管进行静脉注射;在许多情况下,首先选择肘前窝血管,通常没有事先评估其他合适的血管。为了选择注射静脉,技术人员有时使用红外静脉探测仪,但主要是盲棒。对QI项目的回顾表明,较小的针头是造成外渗的因素。此外,对10家医院调查的审查显示,在使用放射性药物之前,缺乏确保静脉注射装置安全/通畅所需的正式规程、培训、知识和技能。最后,对29343例静脉注射数据的回顾结果支持了上述观察结果。结论:我们期望核医学技术人员在提供患者护理时有最好的意图,但许多人没有遵循静脉通路的最佳做法;他们缺乏正式的协议,没有接受过最新的全面培训,也没有使用最好的安置工具和监测设备。因此,大多数核医学技术人员使用最佳实践的假设可能不准确。为了改善放射性药物管理和患者护理,核医学界应该更新技术标准,以解决最新的外周静脉注射和管理最佳实践,为技术人员提供血管可视化工具和适当的培训,发展和要求每年血管进入能力,并提供中心和患者特定数据的主动监测,以创建持续的反馈。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Case Report: All that glitters is not cancer; perihepatic hibernoma with fluctuating FDG uptake on PET/CT. Ionising radiation exposure-induced regulation of selected biomarkers and their impact in cancer and treatment. Copper-61 is an advantageous alternative to gallium-68 for PET imaging of somatostatin receptor-expressing tumors: a head-to-head comparative preclinical study. Terbium sisters: current development status and upscaling opportunities. Mixture prior distributions and Bayesian models for robust radionuclide image processing.
×
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