Dearborn P, De Muth J S, Requarth A B, Ward S E
Oncology Clinic, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, USA.
Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997 Jan-Feb;24(1 Suppl):34-40.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine patient and nurse satisfaction with three types of venous access devices (VADs)--port, Groshong (Bard Access Systems, Salt Lake City, UT), and Hicman (Bard Access Systems)--and to identify the problems and benefits experienced with each type of device.
A descriptive, correlational quality-assurance study.
An outpatient oncology/hematology clinic in a midwestern United States academic hospital with a comprehensive cancer center.
A convenience sample of 85 patients who had a port, Groshong catheter, or Hickman catheter and the clinic nurses who provided their care.
Consecutive patients meeting study criteria were invited to complete self-report questionnaires at the time of their clinic visits. Clinic nurses who cared for these patients also completed questionnaires.
Patients' reports of benefits did not differ by device, but they reported fewer blood-drawing problems with ports than with Groshong on Hickman catheters. Patients and nurses reported infections and clots more often with Groshong catheters than with the other two devices, Patients indicated that healthcare workers seemed most knowledgeable about Hickman catheters. Patients with ports reported more problems with access to the device, development of hematomas, and anxiety. Nurses reported more flow rate problems with Groshong catheters than with Hickman catheters. Patients and nurses reported no flow rate problems with ports.
Each device was associated with a specific problem, yet in the global satisfaction ratings, patients expressed the greatest satisfaction with Hickman catheters and ports. Nurses tended to be least satisfied with Groshong catheters.
Nurses need to ensure that other care providers have appropriate information on the care of VADs. This could be accomplished via written instructions on VAD care and followup telephone calls to care providers. A need exists for continued patient education on VAD care to minimize complications. The selection of an appropriate VAD should be based on the patient's best interests rather than on nurses' preferences.
目的/目标:研究患者和护士对三种类型的静脉通路装置(VAD)——植入式静脉输液港、Groshong导管(巴德接入系统公司,盐湖城,犹他州)和Hickman导管(巴德接入系统公司)的满意度,并确定每种装置所经历的问题和益处。
一项描述性、相关性质量保证研究。
美国中西部一家设有综合癌症中心的学术医院的门诊肿瘤/血液科诊所。
85名使用植入式静脉输液港、Groshong导管或Hickman导管的患者以及为他们提供护理的诊所护士的便利样本。
符合研究标准的连续患者在门诊就诊时被邀请填写自我报告问卷。护理这些患者的诊所护士也完成了问卷。
患者报告的益处不因装置而异,但他们报告使用植入式静脉输液港时的采血问题比使用Groshong导管或Hickman导管时少。患者和护士报告Groshong导管比其他两种装置更容易出现感染和血栓。患者表示医护人员似乎对Hickman导管最了解。使用植入式静脉输液港的患者报告在装置接入、血肿形成和焦虑方面存在更多问题。护士报告Groshong导管比Hickman导管更容易出现流速问题。患者和护士报告植入式静脉输液港没有流速问题。
每种装置都与特定问题相关,但在总体满意度评分中,患者对Hickman导管和植入式静脉输液港的满意度最高。护士对Groshong导管的满意度往往最低。
护士需要确保其他护理人员掌握有关VAD护理的适当信息。这可以通过提供VAD护理的书面说明以及对护理人员进行随访电话来实现。需要持续对患者进行VAD护理教育,以尽量减少并发症。选择合适的VAD应基于患者的最大利益,而不是护士的偏好。