Suppr超能文献

患者对外周静脉置入中心静脉导管的体验——挪威一项横断面、多中心研究。

Patient experiences with peripherally inserted venous catheters- A cross-sectional, multicentre study in Norway.

机构信息

Østfold University College Halden Norway.

Østfold Hospital Trust Grålum Norway.

出版信息

Nurs Open. 2020 Jan 22;7(3):760-767. doi: 10.1002/nop2.448. eCollection 2020 May.

Abstract

AIM

To investigate patient experiences with peripherally inserted venous catheters, namely PICC lines and Midlines, as well as the influence of socio-demographic variables, length of stay, comorbidity and complications on these experiences.

DESIGN

The study had a descriptive, multicentre, cross-sectional design.

METHODS

We used a questionnaire to investigate patient experiences ( = 359).

RESULTS

Patients experiences were not optimal on each of the items in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, few respondents would have preferred a traditional peripheral venous catheter instead. Moreover, free-text answers indicated that patients were very satisfied with their catheter. Results also indicate that the hospitals have different approach when selecting a PICC line or a Midline as route of choice. The only factor associated with patient experiences was "complications."

CONCLUSION

Even though patients reported of several disadvantages with the PICC line/Midline, findings indicate that they would have chosen this again. PICC lines and Midlines are beneficial from the patients' perspective, even though they have disadvantages.

摘要

目的

调查患者对外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(PICC 导管和中线导管)的体验,以及社会人口统计学变量、住院时间、合并症和并发症对这些体验的影响。

设计

本研究为描述性、多中心、横断面设计。

方法

我们使用问卷调查了患者的体验(=359)。

结果

患者在问卷的每个项目上的体验都不是最佳的。然而,很少有受访者表示宁愿选择传统的外周静脉导管。此外,自由文本回答表明患者对他们的导管非常满意。结果还表明,医院在选择 PICC 导管或中线导管作为首选途径时有不同的方法。唯一与患者体验相关的因素是“并发症”。

结论

尽管患者报告了 PICC 导管/中线导管的几个缺点,但研究结果表明,他们会再次选择这种导管。从患者的角度来看,PICC 导管和中线导管是有益的,尽管它们有缺点。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验