We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To evaluate the efficacy of an educational program for the prevention of catheter colonization.
Design:
Two cross-sectional studies were carried out in a 500-bed randomly selected area of the hospital, separated by an educational program on the care of intravenous lines based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for the control of catheter-related infections.
Setting:
A 2,100-bed urban general hospital affiliated with the University of Madrid (Spain).
Methods:
Characteristics of patients and catheters and appropriateness of catheter care were evaluated. Cultures were taken from the point of insertion of the vascular catheter, the hubs, and infusion fluids. When catheter-associated infection was suspected, the distal end of the catheter was sent for culture and two blood cultures were taken. We compared the clinical and microbiological data before and after carrying out an educational program based on CDC recommendations for the control of catheter-related infections.
Results:
Characteristics of patients and catheters did not differ between the two cross-sectional studies. Compared with baseline data, after the educational program we observed a reduction of inappropriate catheter care, from 83% to 38% (45% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI95], 55% to 35%, P<0.0000), and a reduction in the rate of skin colonization, from 34% to 18% (16% difference, CI95, 26% to 5%, P<0.001). The frequency of phlebitis (15% versus 14%), hub colonizations (12% versus 11%), catheter colonizations (2% versus 1%), and catheter-related bacteremias (0% versus 0%) remained unchanged between the two cross-sectional studies.
Conclusions:
Our educational program improved catheter care and reduced significantly the proportion of skin colonization around the insertion point. However, the educational program did not modify the proportion of hub colonization; because hub colonization has been demonstrated to be a source of line sepsis, our data suggest the need for a specific program directed to the maintenance of catheter hubs.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.