患者血液管理:中心静脉导管血液标本采集的混合法与丢弃法。

IF 2.9 Q1 NURSING Journal of Infusion Nursing Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000562
Mary Jo Sarver, Monica McManus, John Toler, Bethany Johnson
{"title":"患者血液管理:中心静脉导管血液标本采集的混合法与丢弃法。","authors":"Mary Jo Sarver, Monica McManus, John Toler, Bethany Johnson","doi":"10.1097/NAN.0000000000000562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A quasi-experimental study comparing the mixing and discard methods of laboratory specimen techniques in an adult acute care setting was conducted over a 30-month period. Primary end points were delta hemoglobin (Hgb) and transfusion rates. Secondary end points were redraws related to hemolysis and erroneous results, noting central venous access device (CVAD) type. Primary objectives included the comparison of hospital-acquired anemia and transfusion rates utilizing Hgb and venous sampling methods as part of a patient blood management (PBM) program. Secondary objectives tracked the type of CVAD used to acquire venous specimens and the impact on hemolysis rates or erroneous results. Considerations include exploring the benefits of utilizing the mixing method related to cost savings. In summary, the mixing versus discard method eliminates wasting blood to reduce hospital-acquired anemia as part of a PBM program. CVAD type did not influence hemolysis rates or impact erroneous results. The mixing method is easy to implement in any health care setting. Cost savings are feasible by elimination of external venous or arterial blood management protection devices. Removal of add-on devices supports standards by decreasing access points to reduce infection risk. Results, although inconclusive to superiority, demonstrated noninferiority and encouraged consideration of the mixing method for laboratory specimen collection.</p>","PeriodicalId":46291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Blood Management: Mixing Versus Discard Methods for Central Venous Catheter Blood Specimen Collection.\",\"authors\":\"Mary Jo Sarver, Monica McManus, John Toler, Bethany Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NAN.0000000000000562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A quasi-experimental study comparing the mixing and discard methods of laboratory specimen techniques in an adult acute care setting was conducted over a 30-month period. Primary end points were delta hemoglobin (Hgb) and transfusion rates. Secondary end points were redraws related to hemolysis and erroneous results, noting central venous access device (CVAD) type. Primary objectives included the comparison of hospital-acquired anemia and transfusion rates utilizing Hgb and venous sampling methods as part of a patient blood management (PBM) program. Secondary objectives tracked the type of CVAD used to acquire venous specimens and the impact on hemolysis rates or erroneous results. Considerations include exploring the benefits of utilizing the mixing method related to cost savings. In summary, the mixing versus discard method eliminates wasting blood to reduce hospital-acquired anemia as part of a PBM program. CVAD type did not influence hemolysis rates or impact erroneous results. The mixing method is easy to implement in any health care setting. Cost savings are feasible by elimination of external venous or arterial blood management protection devices. Removal of add-on devices supports standards by decreasing access points to reduce infection risk. Results, although inconclusive to superiority, demonstrated noninferiority and encouraged consideration of the mixing method for laboratory specimen collection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Infusion Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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.0000000000000562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一项为期 30 个月的准实验研究比较了成人急症护理中实验室标本技术的混合和丢弃方法。主要终点是δ血红蛋白(Hgb)和输血率。次要终点是与溶血和错误结果相关的重抽,并注明中心静脉通路设备(CVAD)类型。首要目标包括比较作为患者血液管理 (PBM) 计划一部分的 Hgb 和静脉采样方法的医院获得性贫血和输血率。次要目标是跟踪用于获取静脉样本的 CVAD 类型及其对溶血率或错误结果的影响。考虑因素包括探索使用混合法在节约成本方面的益处。总之,作为 PBM 计划的一部分,混合法与丢弃法可避免血液浪费,减少医院获得性贫血。CVAD 类型不会影响溶血率或错误结果。混合法易于在任何医疗机构实施。取消外部静脉或动脉血管理保护装置可以节约成本。取消附加装置可减少接入点,降低感染风险,从而支持标准。结果虽然没有得出优劣的结论,但显示了非劣效性,并鼓励在实验室标本采集中考虑使用混合法。
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
Patient Blood Management: Mixing Versus Discard Methods for Central Venous Catheter Blood Specimen Collection.

A quasi-experimental study comparing the mixing and discard methods of laboratory specimen techniques in an adult acute care setting was conducted over a 30-month period. Primary end points were delta hemoglobin (Hgb) and transfusion rates. Secondary end points were redraws related to hemolysis and erroneous results, noting central venous access device (CVAD) type. Primary objectives included the comparison of hospital-acquired anemia and transfusion rates utilizing Hgb and venous sampling methods as part of a patient blood management (PBM) program. Secondary objectives tracked the type of CVAD used to acquire venous specimens and the impact on hemolysis rates or erroneous results. Considerations include exploring the benefits of utilizing the mixing method related to cost savings. In summary, the mixing versus discard method eliminates wasting blood to reduce hospital-acquired anemia as part of a PBM program. CVAD type did not influence hemolysis rates or impact erroneous results. The mixing method is easy to implement in any health care setting. Cost savings are feasible by elimination of external venous or arterial blood management protection devices. Removal of add-on devices supports standards by decreasing access points to reduce infection risk. Results, although inconclusive to superiority, demonstrated noninferiority and encouraged consideration of the mixing method for laboratory specimen collection.

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
4.00
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