对具有多通道血液控制功能的安全设计外周插入式静脉导管的评估:临床医生的接受度和易用性。

Q3 Nursing British Journal of Nursing Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.12968/bjon.2024.0228
Jesson Yeh, Diana Valencia, Christopher R Curtin, Susan Ballek, Allyson Marshall-Hudson, Michael Tuley, Angela Karpf
{"title":"对具有多通道血液控制功能的安全设计外周插入式静脉导管的评估:临床医生的接受度和易用性。","authors":"Jesson Yeh, Diana Valencia, Christopher R Curtin, Susan Ballek, Allyson Marshall-Hudson, Michael Tuley, Angela Karpf","doi":"10.12968/bjon.2024.0228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Acceptability of a new safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter (PIVC) with multiple access blood control (MBC) was evaluated in this observational study by experienced volunteer clinicians on healthy volunteers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians and healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Observers documented study procedures, including if there was any blood leakage from the catheter hub at various times during hub connections and disconnections and how many attempts it took a clinician to get a successful stick. Clinicians responded to yes-or-no and Likert-scale questionnaires describing their experiences with PIVC with MBC after each procedure. Questionnaire data were summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, clinicians considered PIVC with MBC to be acceptable (93.6% agreement). Clinicians were able to easily remove the catheter protective cap, insert the catheter, visualize primary and secondary flashbacks, easily remove the needle from the catheter hub and determine if the safety clip was activated after withdrawing the needle. In addition, they were able to connect or disconnect and flush extension sets. Clinicians did not have to change their insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, and believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter and subsequent hub accesses (agreement ranged from 82.3% to 98.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No blood leakage was observed from the catheter hub at any time during the procedures. Overall, clinicians found the new PIVC with MBC to be acceptable, easy to use, and functioned properly.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Acceptability, usability, and ease of use of a new safety-engineered PIVC with MBC was evaluated. PIVC with MBC was >93% acceptable: prevented blood exposure after multiple insertions/removals. Most clinicians (96%) achieved first stick success when using their product. PIVC with MBC was easy to use, worked properly and allowed clinicians to keep their PIVC technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":35761,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with multiple access blood control: clinician acceptability and ease of use.\",\"authors\":\"Jesson Yeh, Diana Valencia, Christopher R Curtin, Susan Ballek, Allyson Marshall-Hudson, Michael Tuley, Angela Karpf\",\"doi\":\"10.12968/bjon.2024.0228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Acceptability of a new safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter (PIVC) with multiple access blood control (MBC) was evaluated in this observational study by experienced volunteer clinicians on healthy volunteers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians and healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Observers documented study procedures, including if there was any blood leakage from the catheter hub at various times during hub connections and disconnections and how many attempts it took a clinician to get a successful stick. Clinicians responded to yes-or-no and Likert-scale questionnaires describing their experiences with PIVC with MBC after each procedure. Questionnaire data were summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, clinicians considered PIVC with MBC to be acceptable (93.6% agreement). Clinicians were able to easily remove the catheter protective cap, insert the catheter, visualize primary and secondary flashbacks, easily remove the needle from the catheter hub and determine if the safety clip was activated after withdrawing the needle. In addition, they were able to connect or disconnect and flush extension sets. Clinicians did not have to change their insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, and believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter and subsequent hub accesses (agreement ranged from 82.3% to 98.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No blood leakage was observed from the catheter hub at any time during the procedures. Overall, clinicians found the new PIVC with MBC to be acceptable, easy to use, and functioned properly.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Acceptability, usability, and ease of use of a new safety-engineered PIVC with MBC was evaluated. PIVC with MBC was >93% acceptable: prevented blood exposure after multiple insertions/removals. Most clinicians (96%) achieved first stick success when using their product. PIVC with MBC was easy to use, worked properly and allowed clinicians to keep their PIVC technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2024.0228\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2024.0228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在这项观察性研究中,经验丰富的志愿临床医生对健康志愿者进行了新型安全设计的外周插入式静脉导管(PIVC)与多通道血液控制(MBC)的可接受性评估:方法:本研究招募了临床医生和健康志愿者。观察者记录研究过程,包括在连接和断开导管集线器的不同时间段导管集线器是否有血液渗漏,以及临床医生需要尝试多少次才能成功插入导管。临床医生在每次手术后都会回答 "是 "或 "否 "和 "李克特量表 "问卷,描述他们使用 MBC PIVC 的经验。问卷数据按频率和回答百分比汇总;分析采用二项统计法:总体而言,临床医生认为使用 MBC 的 PIVC 是可以接受的(93.6% 的同意率)。临床医生能够轻松取下导管保护帽、插入导管、观察原发性和继发性闪回、轻松从导管毂上拔出针头,并在拔出针头后确定安全夹是否被激活。此外,他们还能连接、断开和冲洗扩展套件。临床医生无需改变他们的插入技术,认为导管易于插入,并相信导管可以保护他们在插入导管和随后的导管毂接入过程中避免血液暴露(一致率从 82.3% 到 98.9% 不等):结论:在手术过程中,任何时候都没有观察到导管集线器渗血。总体而言,临床医生认为带 MBC 的新型 PIVC 可以接受、易于使用且功能正常:重点:对新型安全设计的带 MBC 的 PIVC 的可接受性、可用性和易用性进行了评估。带 MBC 的 PIVC 的接受度大于 93%:防止了多次插入/拔出后的血液暴露。大多数临床医生(96%)在使用其产品时都取得了首针成功。带 MBC 的 PIVC 易于使用,工作正常,临床医生可以保留他们的 PIVC 技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of a safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with multiple access blood control: clinician acceptability and ease of use.

Aim: Acceptability of a new safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter (PIVC) with multiple access blood control (MBC) was evaluated in this observational study by experienced volunteer clinicians on healthy volunteers.

Methods: Clinicians and healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Observers documented study procedures, including if there was any blood leakage from the catheter hub at various times during hub connections and disconnections and how many attempts it took a clinician to get a successful stick. Clinicians responded to yes-or-no and Likert-scale questionnaires describing their experiences with PIVC with MBC after each procedure. Questionnaire data were summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics.

Results: Overall, clinicians considered PIVC with MBC to be acceptable (93.6% agreement). Clinicians were able to easily remove the catheter protective cap, insert the catheter, visualize primary and secondary flashbacks, easily remove the needle from the catheter hub and determine if the safety clip was activated after withdrawing the needle. In addition, they were able to connect or disconnect and flush extension sets. Clinicians did not have to change their insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, and believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter and subsequent hub accesses (agreement ranged from 82.3% to 98.9%).

Conclusions: No blood leakage was observed from the catheter hub at any time during the procedures. Overall, clinicians found the new PIVC with MBC to be acceptable, easy to use, and functioned properly.

Highlights: Acceptability, usability, and ease of use of a new safety-engineered PIVC with MBC was evaluated. PIVC with MBC was >93% acceptable: prevented blood exposure after multiple insertions/removals. Most clinicians (96%) achieved first stick success when using their product. PIVC with MBC was easy to use, worked properly and allowed clinicians to keep their PIVC technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Nursing
British Journal of Nursing Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
404
期刊介绍: British Journal of Nursing (BJN) provides all nurses, regardless of specialism, with a comprehensive resource that brings together nursing practice, education and leadership. We believe that the nurse''s role has become increasingly demanding, which is why we have made some important updates to the journal. It now has more clinical content, more practical features - with clear learning outcomes – and new ''bitesize'' articles designed for accessibility. These changes have been made for one reason – to help easily obtain essential information you can trust.
期刊最新文献
A professional and legal duty to keep up to date. Calling the NMC to account. Evaluation of a safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with multiple access blood control: clinician acceptability and ease of use. Factors influencing the fasting decisions of day-case surgery patients. Intravenous fluid therapy: an audit and discussion of improvements required for prescribers and administrators.
×
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