Miranda Julio A, Trick William E, Evans Arthur T, Charles-Damte Marjorie, Reilly Brendan M, Clarke Peter
Department of Medicine, Cook County (Stroger) Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
J Hosp Med. 2007 May;2(3):135-42. doi: 10.1002/jhm.168.
Central venous catheters placed in femoral veins increase the risk of complications. At our institution, residents place most catheters in the femoral vein.
Determine whether a hands-on educational session reduced femoral venous catheterization and improved residents' confidence and adherence to recommendations for infection control.
Firm-based clinical trial between November 2004 and March 2005.
General medical wards of Cook County (Stroger) Hospital (Chicago, IL), a public teaching hospital.
Internal medicine residents (n = 150).
Before their 4-week rotation, intervention-firm residents received a lecture and practiced placing catheters in mannequins; control-firm residents received the usual training.
Venous insertion site, adherence to recommendations for infection control, knowledge and confidence about catheter insertion, and catheter-associated complications
Residents inserted 54 catheters, or 0.24 insertions per resident per 4-week rotation. There was a nonsignificant decrease in femoral insertions for nondialysis catheters in the intervention group compared to the control group (44% vs. 58%), difference: -14% (95% CI, -52% to 24%). The intervention significantly increased residents' knowledge of complications related to femoral vein catheterization and temporarily increased their confidence about placing internal jugular or subclavian venous catheters. Intervention-group residents were more likely to use masks during catheterization (risk ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7), but other practices were similar.
Our intervention improved residents' knowledge of complications and use of masks during catheter insertion; however, it did not significantly change venous insertion sites. Catheter insertions on our general medicine wards are infrequent, and the skills acquired during the skills-building session may have deteriorated given the few clinical opportunities for reinforcement.
置于股静脉的中心静脉导管会增加并发症风险。在我们机构,住院医师放置的大多数导管都在股静脉。
确定一次实践教育课程是否能减少股静脉置管,并提高住院医师对感染控制建议的信心和依从性。
2004年11月至2005年3月基于机构的临床试验。
库克县(斯特罗格)医院(伊利诺伊州芝加哥)的普通内科病房,一家公立教学医院。
内科住院医师(n = 150)。
在为期4周的轮转之前,干预组的住院医师参加了一次讲座并在人体模型上练习置管;对照组的住院医师接受常规培训。
静脉穿刺部位、对感染控制建议的依从性、关于导管插入的知识和信心以及与导管相关的并发症
住院医师共插入54根导管,即每位住院医师每4周轮转期间插入0.24次。与对照组相比,干预组非透析导管的股静脉穿刺次数有非显著减少(44%对58%),差异为-14%(95%可信区间,-52%至24%)。干预显著增加了住院医师对股静脉置管相关并发症的知识,并暂时提高了他们对放置颈内静脉或锁骨下静脉导管的信心。干预组住院医师在置管期间更有可能使用口罩(风险比,2.2;95%可信区间,1.3 - 2.7),但其他操作类似。
我们的干预提高了住院医师对并发症的认识以及置管期间口罩的使用;然而,它并未显著改变静脉穿刺部位。我们普通内科病房的导管插入操作并不频繁,鉴于强化训练的临床机会较少,技能培训课程中获得的技能可能已经退化。