Controversial issues in the care and maintenance of vascular access devices in the long-term/subacute care client

Journal of Intravenous Nursing

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 249-254

  Sterba, Kathleen G ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^c American Pharmaceutical Services   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; HEPARIN; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

BANDAGE; CATHETERIZATION; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERIZATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INDWELLING CATHETER; INFECTION CONTROL; INTENSIVE CARE; LAVAGE; LONG TERM CARE; METHODOLOGY; NURSING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REVIEW;

ANTICOAGULANTS; BANDAGES; CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; CATHETERIZATION, PERIPHERAL; CATHETERS, INDWELLING; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; HEPARIN; HUMANS; INFECTION CONTROL; IRRIGATION; LONG-TERM CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; SODIUM CHLORIDE; SUBACUTE CARE;

EID: 0035407732     PISSN: 08965846     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00129804-200107000-00009     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. College edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.; 1964.
2. Intravenous Nurses Society. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Intraven Nurs. 2000;23(6S).
3. Pearson ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24(4):262-293.
4. Kiernan M. Know how: IV insertion sites. Nursing Times. 1997;93(37).
5. Goode CJ, Titler M, Rakel B, et al. A meta-analysis of effects of heparin flush and saline flush: quality and cost implications. Nurs Res. 1991;40(6):324-330.
6. Gyr P, Smith K, Pontious S, et al. Double blind comparison of heparin and saline flush solutions in maintenance of peripheral infusion devices. Pediatric Nursing. 1995;21(4):383-389.
7. Mudge B, Forcier D, Slattery MJ. Patency of 24-gauge peripheral intermittent infusion devices: a comparison of heparin and saline flush solutions. Pediatric Nursing. 1998;24(2):142-149.
8. Bregenzer T, Conen D, Pascal S, et al. Is routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters necessary? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:151-156.
9. Homer LD, Holmes K. Risks associated with 72- and 96-hour peripheral intravenous catheter dwell times. J Intraven Nurs. 1998;21(5):301-305.
10. Lai K. Safety of prolonging peripheral cannula and IV tubing use from 72 hours to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26(1):66-70.
11. Gaukroger PB, Roberts JG, Manners TA. Infusion thrombophlebitis: a prospective comparison of 645 Vialon® and Teflon® cannulae in anaesthetic and postoperative use. Anesthesia and Intensive Care. 1998;16:265-271.
12. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:845-854.
13. Masoorli S. When IV practice spells malpractice. RN. 1995; 58(8):53-55.