Show simple item record

dc.creatorRuiz-Sternberg, Angela María 
dc.creatorVelez-van-Meerbeke, Alberto 
dc.creatorRuiz-Sternberg, Jaime 
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-26T00:05:40Z
dc.date.available2020-05-26T00:05:40Z
dc.date.created2012
dc.identifier.issn3007995
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/23814
dc.description.abstract"Objective: Occupational risk of transmission of bloodborne pathogens represents a major challenge in prevention. Even though preventive recommendations to avoid needlestick injuries among healthcare workers include the use of needle protective devices, its use in developing countries is not a standard practice. This study aimed to measure, on experienced nurses, perception of performance characteristics and activation of the safety feature of a safety closed IV catheter system (BD Pegasus*), called catheter P, versus a non-safety device (BD Intima II†) called catheter I in healthy volunteers. Method: Fifty-two nurses and 205 healthy volunteers participated in a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a simulated setting. Each nurse performed two insertions of each catheter (one in each forearm) in four study volunteers; the order of insertions was randomly assigned. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the performance of the two catheters regarding Overall Perception of Clinical Acceptability and Ease of Use. Results: Overall acceptance of the device performance characteristics was 90 or more. In all cases, catheter P performed at least as well as catheter I. There were no differences in the insertion success rate between the two devices (93.7 vs. 96.2). Activation of the safety feature of catheter P occurred 99.4. Subjects' perception of pain was similar for both devices. Overall perception of clinical acceptability and ease of use were judged better for catheter P than for catheter I (p=0.006, and p less than 0.001 respectively). All clinicians strongly agreed that catheter P would protect them from needle stick injuries. Conclusions: Despite the study limitations, mainly its artificial setting and its inability to blind, the results indicate that the Safety Closed IV Catheter System with its safety feature represents a good alternative for IV catheter insertions that can help reduce the incidence of stick injuries in health care workers. © 2012 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted."
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, ISSN:3007995, Vol.28, No.8 (2012); pp. 1381-1387
dc.relation.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84864559640&doi=10.1185%2f03007995.2012.707120&partnerID=40&md5=c655d533c0a86dc0dc61dcebc628f5ef
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.titleClinical acceptability and ease of use of a safety IV catheter system
dc.typearticle
dc.subject.keywordAdult
dc.subject.keywordintravenous
dc.subject.keywordArticle
dc.subject.keywordindwelling
dc.subject.keywordCatheter p
dc.subject.keywordDevice safety
dc.subject.keywordHuman
dc.subject.keywordIntravenous catheter
dc.subject.keywordMajor clinical study
dc.subject.keywordNeedle
dc.subject.keywordNeedlestick injury
dc.subject.keywordNurse attitude
dc.subject.keywordProspective study
dc.subject.keywordVein catheterization
dc.subject.keywordAdult
dc.subject.keywordAged
dc.subject.keywordAttitude of health personnel
dc.subject.keywordCatheterization
dc.subject.keywordCatheters
dc.subject.keywordFemale
dc.subject.keywordHumans
dc.subject.keywordInfusions
dc.subject.keywordMale
dc.subject.keywordMiddle aged
dc.subject.keywordNeedlestick injuries
dc.subject.keywordNurses
dc.subject.keywordOccupational exposure
dc.subject.keywordPain measurement
dc.subject.keywordPerception
dc.subject.keywordPersonal satisfaction
dc.subject.keywordProtective devices
dc.subject.keywordQuestionnaires
dc.subject.keywordYoung adult
dc.subject.keywordIntravenous catheters
dc.subject.keywordNeedle stick injuries
dc.subject.keywordNurses
dc.subject.keywordSafety devices
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.type.spaArtículo
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.707120
dc.relation.citationEndPage1387
dc.relation.citationIssueNo. 8
dc.relation.citationStartPage1381
dc.relation.citationTitleCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
dc.relation.citationVolumeVol. 28


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record