Suppr超能文献

CE:原创研究:血管通路认证重要吗?PICC1调查分析

CE: Original Research: Does Certification in Vascular Access Matter? An Analysis of the PICC1 Survey.

作者信息

Chopra Vineet, Kuhn Latoya, Vaughn Valerie, Ratz David, Winter Suzanne, Moureau Nancy, Meyer Britt, Krein Sarah

机构信息

Vineet Chopra is an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor, where Valerie Vaughn is a clinical instructor and Suzanne Winter is a project manager. Latoya Kuhn is a project manager in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ann Arbor Healthcare System, where David Ratz is a research specialist and Sarah Krein is a research scientist. Nancy Moureau is the chief executive officer of PICC Excellence, Inc., in Hartwell, GA. Britt Meyer is an RN on the vascular access team at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC. Funding for this study was provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no. 1-K08HS022835-01), the VA, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation (grant no. 2140.II). These funding agencies played no role in study design, data acquisition, data analysis, or data reporting. Krein is the recipient of a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). Moureau serves as a speaker and consultant for 3M, Access Scientific, AngioDynamics, Teleflex, BD Carefusion, Chiesi, Cook Medical, Entrotech, Fresenius Kabi, and Nexus; as a researcher at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, she received grants from 3M, Cook Medical, and Entrotech. Meyer is an adviser on Smiths Medical's nurse advisory panel and has given expert testimony on behalf of Cooper and Scully PC. Contact author: Vineet Chopra,

出版信息

Am J Nurs. 2017 Dec;117(12):24-34. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000527458.85599.3a.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

: Background: Although certification by an accredited agency is often a practice prerequisite in health care, it is not required of vascular access specialists who insert peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether certification is associated with differences in practice among inserters is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding whether certified and noncertified PICC inserters differ with respect to their practices and views about PICC use.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey of vascular access specialists, identifying certified PICC inserters as those who had received board certification from the Association for Vascular Access, the Infusion Nurses Society, or both. The 76-item survey asked about PICC policies and procedures at respondents' facilities, use of insertion technologies, device management, management of complications, perceptions about PICC use, and relationships with other health care providers. Additional data about respondents, including years in practice and primary practice settings, were also gathered. Bivariable comparisons were made using χ tests; two-sided α with P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 1,450 respondents in the final sample, 1,007 (69%) said they were certified inserters and 443 (31%) said they were not. Significantly higher percentages of certified than noncertified inserters reported having practiced for five or more years (78% versus 54%) and having placed 1,000 or more PICCs (58% versus 32%). Significantly more certified than noncertified inserters also reported being the vascular access lead for their facility (56% versus 44%). Reported practice patterns for insertion, care, and management of PICCs varied based on certification status. Some evidence-based practices (such as the use of ultrasound to measure catheter-to-vein ratios) were more often reported by certified inserters, while others (such as the use of maximal sterile barriers during PICC insertion) were not. Asked about their perceptions of PICC use at their institution, certified inserters reported higher percentages of inappropriate insertion and removal than noncertified inserters.

CONCLUSION

Certified PICC inserters appear to be a distinct group of vascular access specialists. A better understanding of how and why practices differ between certified and noncertified inserters is necessary to ensuring safer, high-quality patient care.

摘要

未标注

背景:尽管经认可机构认证通常是医疗保健领域的一项执业前提条件,但对于插入经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)的血管通路专科医生来说并非必需。认证是否与插入者的执业差异相关尚不清楚。

目的

本研究的目的是收集有关获得认证和未获得认证的PICC插入者在PICC使用的执业和观点方面是否存在差异的信息。

方法

我们对血管通路专科医生进行了一项全国性调查,将获得认证的PICC插入者定义为那些已获得血管通路协会、输液护理学会或两者的委员会认证的人员。这项包含76个项目的调查询问了受访者所在机构的PICC政策和程序、插入技术的使用、设备管理、并发症管理、对PICC使用的看法以及与其他医疗保健提供者的关系。还收集了有关受访者的其他数据,包括执业年限和主要执业环境。使用χ检验进行双变量比较;双侧α值P≤0.05被认为具有统计学意义。

结果

在最终样本的1450名受访者中,1007名(69%)表示他们是获得认证的插入者,443名(31%)表示他们未获得认证。获得认证的插入者中报告执业五年或更长时间(78%对54%)以及置入1000个或更多PICC(58%对32%)的比例明显高于未获得认证的插入者。报告称担任所在机构血管通路负责人的获得认证的插入者也明显多于未获得认证的插入者(56%对44%)。根据认证状态,报告的PICC插入、护理和管理的执业模式有所不同。一些循证实践(如使用超声测量导管与静脉比例)在获得认证的插入者中报告得更为频繁,而其他一些实践(如在PICC插入过程中使用最大无菌屏障)则不然。当被问及他们对所在机构PICC使用的看法时,获得认证的插入者报告的不适当插入和拔除比例高于未获得认证的插入者。

结论

获得认证的PICC插入者似乎是一个独特的血管通路专科医生群体。为确保更安全、高质量的患者护理,有必要更好地了解获得认证和未获得认证的插入者在执业方式和原因上的差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验