Secola Rita, Azen Colleen, Lewis Mary Ann, Pike Nancy, Needleman Jack, Sposto Richard, Doering Lynn
Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA.
J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2012 Nov-Dec;29(6):307-15. doi: 10.1177/1043454212461714.
Treatment for most children with cancer includes the use of a central venous catheter (CVC). CVCs provide reliable venous access for delivery of chemotherapy and supportive care. This advantage is mitigated by an increased risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs). Despite the ubiquitous use of CVCs, few prospective studies have been conducted to address infection prevention strategies in pediatric oncology patients.
Prospective, crossover pilot study of a CVC team intervention versus standard care.
Two inpatient oncology units in a metropolitan children's hospital.
A total of 41 patients/135 admissions for the experimental unit (EU) and 41/129 admissions for the control unit (CU).
Patients received a CVC blood draw bundle procedure by a CVC registered nurse (RN) team member (experimental intervention: EU) for 6 months and by the assigned bedside RN (standard care: CU) for 6 months. Feasibility of implementing a CVC RN team; a significant difference in CVC-related BSIs between the team intervention versus standard care and risk factors associated in the development of CVC-related BSIs were determined.
There were 7 CVC-related BSIs/1238 catheter days in the EU group (5.7/1000 catheter days) versus 3 CVC-related BSIs/1419 catheter days in the CU group (2.1/1000 catheter days; P = .97). Selected risk factors were not significantly associated with the development of a CVC-related BSI.
A CVC team in the care of pediatric oncology patients is feasible; however, a larger cohort will be required to adequately determine the effectiveness of the team reducing CVC-related BSIs.
大多数癌症患儿的治疗都包括使用中心静脉导管(CVC)。CVC为化疗和支持性治疗的给药提供了可靠的静脉通路。然而,血流感染(BSI)风险增加削弱了这一优势。尽管CVC被广泛使用,但很少有前瞻性研究探讨儿科肿瘤患者的感染预防策略。
CVC团队干预与标准护理的前瞻性交叉试点研究。
一家大城市儿童医院的两个住院肿瘤科病房。
实验组(EU)共有41例患者/135次入院,对照组(CU)有41例患者/129次入院。
患者接受由CVC注册护士(RN)团队成员进行的CVC采血捆绑操作(实验干预:EU)6个月,然后由指定的床边RN进行6个月(标准护理:CU)。确定实施CVC RN团队的可行性;团队干预与标准护理之间CVC相关BSI的显著差异以及与CVC相关BSI发生相关的风险因素。
EU组有7例CVC相关BSI/1238导管日(5.7/1000导管日);CU组有3例CVC相关BSI/1419导管日(2.1/1000导管日;P = 0.97)。选定的风险因素与CVC相关BSI的发生无显著关联。
在儿科肿瘤患者护理中组建CVC团队是可行的;然而,需要更大的队列来充分确定该团队降低CVC相关BSI的有效性。