Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venipuncture Decreases the Procedure's Pain and Positively Impacts Patient's Experience: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 2.9 Q1 NURSING Journal of Infusion Nursing Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000542
Marina Junges, Leandro Augusto Hansel, Marina Scherer Santos, Vânia Naomi Hirakata, Rodrigo do Nascimento Ceratti, Gabriela Petró Valli Czerwinski, Marco Aurélio Lumertz Saffi, Eduarda Bordini Ferro, Daniele Volkmer Jacobsen, Eneida Rejane Rabelo-Silva
{"title":"Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venipuncture Decreases the Procedure's Pain and Positively Impacts Patient's Experience: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Marina Junges, Leandro Augusto Hansel, Marina Scherer Santos, Vânia Naomi Hirakata, Rodrigo do Nascimento Ceratti, Gabriela Petró Valli Czerwinski, Marco Aurélio Lumertz Saffi, Eduarda Bordini Ferro, Daniele Volkmer Jacobsen, Eneida Rejane Rabelo-Silva","doi":"10.1097/NAN.0000000000000542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare patients' experience of pain during ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venipuncture versus conventional peripheral venipuncture. This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a public university hospital in 2021. Adult patients with indication for intravenous therapy compatible with peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) were included: intervention group (IG), US peripheral venipuncture executed by specialist nurses; control group (CG), conventional peripheral venipuncture executed by clinical practice nurses. The primary outcome was patient experience of pain during the procedure and patient experience related to the PIVC placement method. Sixty-four patients were included, 32 for each group. The pain experienced was none-to-mild in the IG for 25 patients (78.1%) and moderate-to-severe in the CG for 21 patients (65.7%; P < .001). The overall pain rating was 2 (1-3) in the IG and 4 (3-6) in the CG (P < .001). The recommendation of the procedure in IG (net promoter score [NPS] + 90.6%) versus CG (NPS + 18.8%) was considered excellent and good, respectively (P < .001). Patients had less pain and significantly recommended the US-guided procedure. Patient experience with US-guided PIVC, performed by a specialist nurse, was superior to that of conventional peripheral venipuncture.</p>","PeriodicalId":46291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare patients' experience of pain during ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venipuncture versus conventional peripheral venipuncture. This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a public university hospital in 2021. Adult patients with indication for intravenous therapy compatible with peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) were included: intervention group (IG), US peripheral venipuncture executed by specialist nurses; control group (CG), conventional peripheral venipuncture executed by clinical practice nurses. The primary outcome was patient experience of pain during the procedure and patient experience related to the PIVC placement method. Sixty-four patients were included, 32 for each group. The pain experienced was none-to-mild in the IG for 25 patients (78.1%) and moderate-to-severe in the CG for 21 patients (65.7%; P < .001). The overall pain rating was 2 (1-3) in the IG and 4 (3-6) in the CG (P < .001). The recommendation of the procedure in IG (net promoter score [NPS] + 90.6%) versus CG (NPS + 18.8%) was considered excellent and good, respectively (P < .001). Patients had less pain and significantly recommended the US-guided procedure. Patient experience with US-guided PIVC, performed by a specialist nurse, was superior to that of conventional peripheral venipuncture.

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
超声引导下的外周静脉穿刺可减轻手术疼痛并对患者体验产生积极影响:PRECISE 随机临床试验》。
本研究旨在比较超声(US)引导下外周静脉穿刺与传统外周静脉穿刺时患者的疼痛体验。这项随机临床试验于 2021 年在一家公立大学医院进行。试验纳入了有静脉治疗指征并符合外周静脉导管(PIVC)的成人患者:干预组(IG),由专科护士实施超声外周静脉穿刺;对照组(CG),由临床实践护士实施传统外周静脉穿刺。主要研究结果是患者在手术过程中的疼痛体验以及与 PIVC 置入方法相关的患者体验。共纳入 64 名患者,每组 32 人。在 IG 组中,25 名患者(78.1%)的疼痛程度为非到轻度;在 CG 组中,21 名患者(65.7%)的疼痛程度为中度到重度;P < .001。IG 患者的总体疼痛评分为 2(1-3)分,CG 患者的总体疼痛评分为 4(3-6)分(P < .001)。IG(净促进者评分 [NPS] + 90.6%)和 CG(净促进者评分 + 18.8%)对手术的推荐度分别为优秀和良好(P < .001)。患者疼痛较轻,并大力推荐在 US 引导下进行手术。由专科护士实施的 US 引导 PIVC 患者体验优于传统的外周静脉穿刺。
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
4.00
自引率
15.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Journal of Infusion Nursing, the official publication of the Infusion Nurses Society (INS), seeks to promote excellence in infusion nursing by presenting new research, clinical reviews, case studies, and professional development information relevant to the practice of infusion therapy. Articles selected for publication represent the broad scope of the infusion specialty and draw on the expertise of all healthcare providers who participate in the delivery of infusion therapy.
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of Pumping Infusion-Induced Contamination With Different Syringe Types. An Exemplary Publication. Complications Related to the Securement Device in Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Randomized Study. Midline Catheter-Associated Thrombosis (MCAT): Does Tip Location in the Axillary Vein Increase Risk? Parenteral Nutrition Safety.
×
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