The 'just-in-case venflon': effect of surveillance and feedback on prevalence of peripherally inserted intravascular devices

Journal of Hospital Infection

Volumn 64, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 401-402

  Goddard, L ^a   Clayton, S ^a   Peto, T E A ^a   Bowler, I C J W ^a  

^a OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSULTATION; DEVICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INFECTION CONTROL; LETTER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PHLEBITIS; PREVALENCE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGICAL PATIENT; WARD;

CATHETERS, INDWELLING; CROSS INFECTION; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INFECTION CONTROL; PHLEBITIS;

EID: 33750531282     PISSN: 01956701     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.08.003     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Thomas A., Hayes P., Lockie T., and Harrington D. Venflons: why can't we resist putting them in?. J Hosp Infect 63 (2006) 108-109
2. Jackson A. A battle in the vein: infusion phlebitis. Nurs Times 94 4 (1998) 68-71
3. Curran E.T., Coia J.E., Gilmour H., McNamee S., and Hood J. Multi-centre research surveillance project to reduce infections/phlebitis associated with peripheral vascular catheters. J Hosp Infect 46 (2000) 194-202
4. Creamer E., McCarthy G., Tighe I., et al. A survey of 554 peripheral intravenous catheters: infection, duration of cannulation and documentation issues. Br J Infect Control 4 (2003) 21-24