对静脉通路困难的肿瘤患者静脉穿刺时使用的新型采血装置进行评估:对样本质量、抽血医师满意度和患者疼痛感的影响

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING European Journal of Oncology Nursing Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102680
{"title":"对静脉通路困难的肿瘤患者静脉穿刺时使用的新型采血装置进行评估:对样本质量、抽血医师满意度和患者疼痛感的影响","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Difficult venous access (DVA), characterized by non-visible and non-palpable veins, is common in oncology patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the performances of two blood collection sets in an oncology phlebotomy setting: BD Vacutainer® UltraTouch™ Push Button (UT-PBBCS) and BD Vacutainer® Safety-Lok™ Blood Collection Set (SLBCS). The two sets were evaluated to assess whether use of a smaller gauge (G) needle (down-gauging) may reduce patient pain and improve peripheral venous access experience during phlebotomy in oncology patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Questionnaires were used to record patient data (age, gender), phlebotomy procedural observations (venipuncture site, number of collected tubes, blood flow, needle repositioning, underfilled tubes), patient pain perception and phlebotomist difficulty perception scores (0–10 points scale). Specimen quality was evaluated by hemolysis index (HI) on Roche Cobas® 6000.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Subject groups showed no statistical difference. SLBCS (21/23G) or UT-PBBCS (23/25G) were used in 264 (45.8%) and 313 (54.2%) subjects respectively. Lower gauge was preferred for DVA (hand venipuncture), and DVA was associated with tube underfilling but no with type of blood collection set. For UT-PBBCS, pain perception, patients' anxiety level and phlebotomists’ difficulty grade were lower when compared to SLBCS (p &lt; 0.001). Blood samples collected with UT-PBBCS showed less hemolysis compared to samples collected with SLBCS (p &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Provision of a smaller gauge UT-PBBCS option during phlebotomy in oncology patients with DVA reduces procedural pain and anxiety and improved phlebotomist’ experience during sample collection. Despite the down-gauging, hemolysis was lower for UT-PBBCS, keeping sample quality while improving DVA patient comfort.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51048,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924001789/pdfft?md5=efda78a0b5863617af5bc3406a6aa289&pid=1-s2.0-S1462388924001789-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a novel blood collection set for venipuncture in oncology patients with difficult venous access: Impact on sample quality, phlebotomist satisfaction and patient pain perception\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Difficult venous access (DVA), characterized by non-visible and non-palpable veins, is common in oncology patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the performances of two blood collection sets in an oncology phlebotomy setting: BD Vacutainer® UltraTouch™ Push Button (UT-PBBCS) and BD Vacutainer® Safety-Lok™ Blood Collection Set (SLBCS). The two sets were evaluated to assess whether use of a smaller gauge (G) needle (down-gauging) may reduce patient pain and improve peripheral venous access experience during phlebotomy in oncology patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Questionnaires were used to record patient data (age, gender), phlebotomy procedural observations (venipuncture site, number of collected tubes, blood flow, needle repositioning, underfilled tubes), patient pain perception and phlebotomist difficulty perception scores (0–10 points scale). Specimen quality was evaluated by hemolysis index (HI) on Roche Cobas® 6000.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Subject groups showed no statistical difference. SLBCS (21/23G) or UT-PBBCS (23/25G) were used in 264 (45.8%) and 313 (54.2%) subjects respectively. Lower gauge was preferred for DVA (hand venipuncture), and DVA was associated with tube underfilling but no with type of blood collection set. For UT-PBBCS, pain perception, patients' anxiety level and phlebotomists’ difficulty grade were lower when compared to SLBCS (p &lt; 0.001). Blood samples collected with UT-PBBCS showed less hemolysis compared to samples collected with SLBCS (p &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Provision of a smaller gauge UT-PBBCS option during phlebotomy in oncology patients with DVA reduces procedural pain and anxiety and improved phlebotomist’ experience during sample collection. Despite the down-gauging, hemolysis was lower for UT-PBBCS, keeping sample quality while improving DVA patient comfort.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oncology Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924001789/pdfft?md5=efda78a0b5863617af5bc3406a6aa289&pid=1-s2.0-S1462388924001789-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Oncology Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924001789\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oncology Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462388924001789","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在肿瘤患者中,静脉通路困难(DVA)很常见,其特点是看不见和摸不着静脉。本研究的目的是比较两种采血器在肿瘤科抽血环境中的性能:BD Vacutainer® UltraTouch™ 按钮式采血器 (UT-PBBCS) 和 BD Vacutainer® Safety-Lok™ 安全锁式采血器 (SLBCS)。方法 通过问卷调查记录患者数据(年龄、性别)、抽血程序观察结果(静脉穿刺部位、采集试管数量、血流量、针头复位、试管未满)、患者疼痛感和抽血医师难度感评分(0-10 分制)。标本质量通过罗氏 Cobas® 6000 的溶血指数(HI)进行评估。使用 SLBCS(21/23G)或UT-PBBCS(23/25G)的受试者分别为 264 人(45.8%)和 313 人(54.2%)。DVA(徒手静脉穿刺)首选较低的规格,DVA与导管填充不足有关,但与采血装置的类型无关。与 SLBCS 相比,UT-PBBCS 的疼痛感、患者的焦虑程度和抽血医师的难度等级均较低(p < 0.001)。结论在对患有 DVA 的肿瘤患者进行抽血术时,提供较小规格的 UT-PBBCS 可减少抽血过程中的疼痛和焦虑,并改善抽血医师在样本采集过程中的体验。尽管UT-PBBCS的量规较小,但溶血率较低,在保证样本质量的同时提高了DVA患者的舒适度。
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 novel blood collection set for venipuncture in oncology patients with difficult venous access: Impact on sample quality, phlebotomist satisfaction and patient pain perception

Purpose

Difficult venous access (DVA), characterized by non-visible and non-palpable veins, is common in oncology patients. The objectives of this study were to compare the performances of two blood collection sets in an oncology phlebotomy setting: BD Vacutainer® UltraTouch™ Push Button (UT-PBBCS) and BD Vacutainer® Safety-Lok™ Blood Collection Set (SLBCS). The two sets were evaluated to assess whether use of a smaller gauge (G) needle (down-gauging) may reduce patient pain and improve peripheral venous access experience during phlebotomy in oncology patients.

Methods

Questionnaires were used to record patient data (age, gender), phlebotomy procedural observations (venipuncture site, number of collected tubes, blood flow, needle repositioning, underfilled tubes), patient pain perception and phlebotomist difficulty perception scores (0–10 points scale). Specimen quality was evaluated by hemolysis index (HI) on Roche Cobas® 6000.

Results

Subject groups showed no statistical difference. SLBCS (21/23G) or UT-PBBCS (23/25G) were used in 264 (45.8%) and 313 (54.2%) subjects respectively. Lower gauge was preferred for DVA (hand venipuncture), and DVA was associated with tube underfilling but no with type of blood collection set. For UT-PBBCS, pain perception, patients' anxiety level and phlebotomists’ difficulty grade were lower when compared to SLBCS (p < 0.001). Blood samples collected with UT-PBBCS showed less hemolysis compared to samples collected with SLBCS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Provision of a smaller gauge UT-PBBCS option during phlebotomy in oncology patients with DVA reduces procedural pain and anxiety and improved phlebotomist’ experience during sample collection. Despite the down-gauging, hemolysis was lower for UT-PBBCS, keeping sample quality while improving DVA patient comfort.

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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
109
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Oncology Nursing is an international journal which publishes research of direct relevance to patient care, nurse education, management and policy development. EJON is proud to be the official journal of the European Oncology Nursing Society. The journal publishes the following types of papers: • Original research articles • Review articles
期刊最新文献
The effect of using virtual reality goggles on psychological well-being and care burden of informal caregivers of patients hospitalized in a palliative care clinic Effect of an integrated narrative program (INP) on quality of life among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An experimental trial Effect of training based on Orem's self-care deficit theory on breast cancer patients' management of chemotherapy-related side effects and self-care behaviors: A randomized controlled trial Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation in cancer survivors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Editorial Board
×
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