Impact of implementation of reminders to reduce adverse effects in patients with peripheral vascular devices.

Authors

  • T. Sebastián
  • F. Nuñez
  • G. Martín
  • J.M. González Ruiz
  • I. Lema
  • P. Salvadores
  • M.E. Losa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23938/ASSN.0095

Keywords:

Sistemas recordatorios. Sistemas de registros médicos computarizados. Cateterización venosa periférica. Eventos adversos. Hospitalización.

Abstract

AIM The main purpose of this paper is to measure the clinical impact of the implementation of a warning/reminder system that would alert the patients of the risks of presenting an adverse event (AE) related to the peripheral venous catheter. METHOD An automated consultation has been made with a list of the admitted patients following the registers for the monitoring of the intravenous catheters. This list include: date of admission, date of the insertion of the venous access device and type of device. It has been implanted in January 2010 and updated three times a day with the computers of the unit. A quasi-experimental study has measured the cumulative incidence of phlebitis, extravasation and obstructions in the patients registered during the year 2009 and 2010. The association between qualitative variables has been evaluated with the Chi-squared test, concluding a relative risk (RR). The null hypothesis type I error < 0.05 has been rejected. RESULTS 9263 patients were registered in the studied units in the year 2009 and 9220 patients in 2010. The results were the following: Patients with phlebitis: incidence 2009 1007: 10.87%; 2010: 8.99%. RR: 0.827 (p < 0.001). Patients with extravasations: incidence 2009: 11.18%; 2010: 8.99%. RR: 0.804 (p < 0.001). Patients with obstructions: incidence 2009: 3.45%; 2010: 3.30%. RR: 0.954 (p < 0.554). CONCLUSION With the help of a reminder list (which includes the patients with vascular access and the date), the number of phlebitis and extravasations has decreased but not the number of obstructions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. SHOJANIA K, JENNINGS A, MAYHEW A, RAMSAY C, ECCLES M, GRIMSHAW J. Efectos de los recordatorios en pantalla de computadoras en lugares de atención sobre los procesos y los resultados de la atención. Biblioteca Cochrane Plus 2009(3).

2. KUCHER N, KOO S, QUIROZ R, COOPER JM, PATERNO MD, SOUKONNIKOV B et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(10):969-977.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041533

3. DEXTER PR, PERKINS S, OVERHAGE JM, MAHARRY K, KOHLER RB, MCDONALD CJ. A computerized reminder system to increase the use of preventive care for hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 965-970.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa010181

4. HOLT TA, THOROGOOD M, GRIFFITHS F, MUNDAY S, FRIEDE T, STABLES D. Automated electronic reminders to facilitate primary cardiovascular disease prevention: randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2010; 60 (573): 137-143.

https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X483904

5. GANDHI TK, SEQUIST TD, POON EG, KARSON AS, MURFF H, FAIRCHILD DG et al. Primary care clinician attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003: 848.

6. BOGUCKI B, JACOBS BR, HINGLE J. Clinical Informatics Outcomes Research Group. Computerized reminders reduce the use of medications during shortages. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 278-280.

https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1531

7. WILLSON D, ASHTON C, WINGATE N, GOFF C, HORN S, DAVIES M et al. Computerized support of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment protocols. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995: 646-650.

8. ZIELSTORFF RD, ESTEY G, VICKERY A, HAMILTON G, FITZMAURICE JB, BARNETT GO. Evaluation of a decision support system for pressure ulcer prevention and management: preliminary findings. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997:248-252.

9. Joanna Briggs Institute. Manejo de los dispositivos intravasculares periféricos. Best Practice 2008; 12: 1-4.

10. CARBALLO M, LLINAS M, FEIJOO M. Phlebitis in peripheral catheters (I). Incidence and risk factors. Rev Enferm 2004; 27: 25-32.

11. CARBALLO M, LLINAS M, FEIJOO M. Phlebitis in peripheral catheters (II). A study. Rev Enferm 2004; 27: 34-38.

12. CAZALLA FONCUEVA AM, SÁNCHEZ LÓPEZ C, CALERO PEREA A, MÁRQUEZ LUQUE R. Intravenous catheters. Use and complications at an infective disease unit. Rev Enferm 2003; 26: 51-54.

13. CHUMILLAS FERNÁNDEZ A, SÁNCHEZ GONZÁLEZ N, SÁNCHEZ CÓRCOLES M. Plan de cuidados para la prevención de flebitis por inserción de catéter periférico. Rev Enferm Albacete 2002; 15: 35-40.

14. DE DIOS GARCÍA-DÍAZ J, SANTOLAYA PERRIN R, PAZ MARTINEZ ORTEGA M, MORENO-VAZQUEZ M. Phlebitis due to intravenous administration of macrolide antibiotics. A comparative study of erythromycin versus clarithromycin. Med Clin (Barc) 2001; 116: 133-135.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(01)71748-4

15. REGUEIRO POSE MA, SOUTO RODRIGUEZ B, IGLESIAS MARONO M, OUTON FERNANDEZ I, CAMBEIRO NUNEZ J, PERTEGA DIAZ S et al. Peripheral venous catheters: incidence of phlebitis and its determining factors. Rev Enferm 2005; 28: 21-28.

16. RUIZ TRILLO C. Tratamientos aplicados a las flebitis postperfusión. Rev Enferm 2006; 29: 135-140.

17. DE DIOS GARCÍA-DÍAZ J, SANTOLAYA PERRIN R, PAZ MARTINEZ ORTEGA M, MORENO-VÁZQUEZ M. Flebitis relacionada con la administración intravenosa de antibióticos macrólidos: estudio comparativo de eritromicina y claritromicina. Med Clin (Barc) 2001; 116: 133-135.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7753(01)71748-4

18. ÚRIZ J, SALVADOR B, GUTIÉRREZ A, PETIT A, ANGUIANO P, SAMPÉRIZ A. Vigilancia y control de las bacteriemias asociadas a dispositivos intravasculares. An Sist Sanit Navar 2000; 23 (Supl. 2): 161-167.

19. O'GRADY NP, ALEXANDER M, BURNS LA, PATCHEN DELLINGER E, GARLAND J, HEARD SO et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. U.S.A.: CDC; 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.003

20. CABRERO J, ORTS MI, LOPEZ-COIG ML, VELASCO ML, RICHART M. Variabilidad en la práctica clínica del mantenimiento de la permeabilidad de los catéteres venosos periféricos. Gac Sanit 2005; 19: 287-293.

https://doi.org/10.1157/13078037

21. RODRÍGUEZ S. Complicaciones de la terapia intravenosa como causa de la prolongación de la estancia hospitalaria. Enfermería Científica 1992 (118): 20-21.

22. TABOADA J, MONTES A, TARACIDO M. Complicaciones de la terapia intravenosa: flebitis. Análisis de los factores de riesgo. Enfermería Científica 1999 (206-207): 80-85.

23. SEBASTIAN T, DEL POZO P, NAVALON R, LEMA I, NOGUEIRAS CG. Impacto de la codificación de información de enfermería en el peso medio de los grupos relacionados con el diagnóstico y su repercusión en la facturación de un hospital. Gac Sanit 2009; 23: 55-57.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2008.04.004

24. CORTÉS M. Club de Enfermería Signo II. Madrid: Dirección General del INSALUD; 1995.

25. ABRAIRA A. Medidas del efecto de un tratamiento (II): odds ratio y número necesario para tratar. SEMERGEN 2001; 27: 418-420.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-3593(01)74000-2

26. COOK RJ, SACKETT DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452-454.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452

27. AYMERICH M, SÁNCHEZ E. Del conocimiento científico de la investigación clínica a la cabecera del enfermo: las guías de práctica clínica y su implementación. Gac Sanit 2004; 18: 326-334.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0213-9111(04)72020-8

Published

2012-12-30

How to Cite

1.
Sebastián T, Nuñez F, Martín G, González Ruiz J, Lema I, Salvadores P, et al. Impact of implementation of reminders to reduce adverse effects in patients with peripheral vascular devices. An Sist Sanit Navar [Internet]. 2012 Dec. 30 [cited 2025 Dec. 21];35(3):395-402. Available from: https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/ASSN/article/view/16038

Issue

Section

Research articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.