Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes

Meryl H. Mendelson, Louise J. Short, Clyde B. Schechter, Burt R. Meyers, Margarita Rodriguez, Sandra Cohen, John Lozada, Marvalyn DeCambre, Shalom Z. Hirschman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on staff- and patient-related complications of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions. DESIGN: A 6-month cross-over clinical trial (phase I, 13 weeks; phase II, 12 weeks) of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system (NL; study device) compared to a conventional heparin-lock system (CHL, control device) was performed during 1991 on 16 medical and surgical units. A random selection of patients was assessed for local intravenous-site complications; all patients were assessed for the development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. Staff were assessed for percutaneous injuries and participated in completion of product evaluations. A cost analysis of the study compared to the control device was performed. SETTING: A 1,100-bed, teaching, referral medical center. PATIENTS AND STAFF PARTICIPANTS: 594 patients during 602 patient admissions, comprising a random sample of all patients with a study or control device inserted within a previous 24-hour period on study and control units, were assessed for local complications. The 16 units included adult inpatient general medicine, surgical, and subspecialty units. Pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and intensive-care units were excluded. All patients on study and control units were assessed for development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. All staff who utilized, manipulated, or may have been exposed to sharps on study and control units were assessed for percutaneous injuries. Nursing staff completed product evaluations. INTERVENTION: The study device, a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve, was compared to the control device, a conventional heparin lock, for peripheral infusions. RESULTS: During the study, 35 percutaneous injuries were reported. Eight injuries were CHL-related; no NL-related injuries were reported (P=.007). An evaluation of 602 patient admissions, 1,134 intermittent access devices, and 2,268 observed indwelling device days demonstrated more pain at the insertion site for CHL than NL; however, no differences in objective signs of phlebitis were noted. Of 773 episodes of positive blood cultures on study and control units, 6 (0.8%) were device-related (assessed by blinded investigator), with no difference between NL and CHL. Complications, including difficulty with infusion (P<.001) and disconnection of intravenous tubing from device (P<.001), were reported more frequently with CHL than with NL. Of nursing staff responding to a product evaluation survey, 95.2% preferred the study over control device. The projected annual incremental cost to our institution for hospitalwide implementation of NL for intermittent access for peripheral infusions was estimated at $82,845, or $230 per 1,000 patient days. CONCLUSIONS: A needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions is effective in reducing percutaneous injuries to staff and is not associated with an increase in either insertion-site complications or nosocomial bacteremia. Institutions should consider these data, available institutional resources, and institution-specific data regarding the frequency and risk of intermittent access-device-related injuries and other types of sharps injuries in their staff when selecting the above or other safety devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-406
Number of pages6
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume19
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Bacteremia
Patient Admission
Nursing Staff
Heparin
Protective Devices
Needlestick Injuries
Costs and Cost Analysis
Phlebitis
Gynecology
Cross-Over Studies
Patient Selection
Obstetrics
Intensive Care Units
Inpatients
Teaching
Referral and Consultation
Research Personnel
Medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology
  • Microbiology (medical)

Cite this

Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions : Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes. / Mendelson, Meryl H.; Short, Louise J.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Meyers, Burt R.; Rodriguez, Margarita; Cohen, Sandra; Lozada, John; DeCambre, Marvalyn; Hirschman, Shalom Z.

In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 06.1998, p. 401-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mendelson, MH, Short, LJ, Schechter, CB, Meyers, BR, Rodriguez, M, Cohen, S, Lozada, J, DeCambre, M & Hirschman, SZ 1998, 'Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes', Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 401-406.
Mendelson, Meryl H. ; Short, Louise J. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Meyers, Burt R. ; Rodriguez, Margarita ; Cohen, Sandra ; Lozada, John ; DeCambre, Marvalyn ; Hirschman, Shalom Z. / Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions : Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes. In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1998 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 401-406.
@article{e1b5b36fb3fc43e491868220c012cb28,
title = "Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on staff- and patient-related complications of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions. DESIGN: A 6-month cross-over clinical trial (phase I, 13 weeks; phase II, 12 weeks) of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system (NL; study device) compared to a conventional heparin-lock system (CHL, control device) was performed during 1991 on 16 medical and surgical units. A random selection of patients was assessed for local intravenous-site complications; all patients were assessed for the development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. Staff were assessed for percutaneous injuries and participated in completion of product evaluations. A cost analysis of the study compared to the control device was performed. SETTING: A 1,100-bed, teaching, referral medical center. PATIENTS AND STAFF PARTICIPANTS: 594 patients during 602 patient admissions, comprising a random sample of all patients with a study or control device inserted within a previous 24-hour period on study and control units, were assessed for local complications. The 16 units included adult inpatient general medicine, surgical, and subspecialty units. Pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and intensive-care units were excluded. All patients on study and control units were assessed for development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. All staff who utilized, manipulated, or may have been exposed to sharps on study and control units were assessed for percutaneous injuries. Nursing staff completed product evaluations. INTERVENTION: The study device, a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve, was compared to the control device, a conventional heparin lock, for peripheral infusions. RESULTS: During the study, 35 percutaneous injuries were reported. Eight injuries were CHL-related; no NL-related injuries were reported (P=.007). An evaluation of 602 patient admissions, 1,134 intermittent access devices, and 2,268 observed indwelling device days demonstrated more pain at the insertion site for CHL than NL; however, no differences in objective signs of phlebitis were noted. Of 773 episodes of positive blood cultures on study and control units, 6 (0.8{\%}) were device-related (assessed by blinded investigator), with no difference between NL and CHL. Complications, including difficulty with infusion (P<.001) and disconnection of intravenous tubing from device (P<.001), were reported more frequently with CHL than with NL. Of nursing staff responding to a product evaluation survey, 95.2{\%} preferred the study over control device. The projected annual incremental cost to our institution for hospitalwide implementation of NL for intermittent access for peripheral infusions was estimated at $82,845, or $230 per 1,000 patient days. CONCLUSIONS: A needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions is effective in reducing percutaneous injuries to staff and is not associated with an increase in either insertion-site complications or nosocomial bacteremia. Institutions should consider these data, available institutional resources, and institution-specific data regarding the frequency and risk of intermittent access-device-related injuries and other types of sharps injuries in their staff when selecting the above or other safety devices.",
author = "Mendelson, {Meryl H.} and Short, {Louise J.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Meyers, {Burt R.} and Margarita Rodriguez and Sandra Cohen and John Lozada and Marvalyn DeCambre and Hirschman, {Shalom Z.}",
year = "1998",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "401--406",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions

T2 - Analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes

AU - Mendelson, Meryl H.

AU - Short, Louise J.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Meyers, Burt R.

AU - Rodriguez, Margarita

AU - Cohen, Sandra

AU - Lozada, John

AU - DeCambre, Marvalyn

AU - Hirschman, Shalom Z.

PY - 1998/6

Y1 - 1998/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on staff- and patient-related complications of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions. DESIGN: A 6-month cross-over clinical trial (phase I, 13 weeks; phase II, 12 weeks) of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system (NL; study device) compared to a conventional heparin-lock system (CHL, control device) was performed during 1991 on 16 medical and surgical units. A random selection of patients was assessed for local intravenous-site complications; all patients were assessed for the development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. Staff were assessed for percutaneous injuries and participated in completion of product evaluations. A cost analysis of the study compared to the control device was performed. SETTING: A 1,100-bed, teaching, referral medical center. PATIENTS AND STAFF PARTICIPANTS: 594 patients during 602 patient admissions, comprising a random sample of all patients with a study or control device inserted within a previous 24-hour period on study and control units, were assessed for local complications. The 16 units included adult inpatient general medicine, surgical, and subspecialty units. Pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and intensive-care units were excluded. All patients on study and control units were assessed for development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. All staff who utilized, manipulated, or may have been exposed to sharps on study and control units were assessed for percutaneous injuries. Nursing staff completed product evaluations. INTERVENTION: The study device, a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve, was compared to the control device, a conventional heparin lock, for peripheral infusions. RESULTS: During the study, 35 percutaneous injuries were reported. Eight injuries were CHL-related; no NL-related injuries were reported (P=.007). An evaluation of 602 patient admissions, 1,134 intermittent access devices, and 2,268 observed indwelling device days demonstrated more pain at the insertion site for CHL than NL; however, no differences in objective signs of phlebitis were noted. Of 773 episodes of positive blood cultures on study and control units, 6 (0.8%) were device-related (assessed by blinded investigator), with no difference between NL and CHL. Complications, including difficulty with infusion (P<.001) and disconnection of intravenous tubing from device (P<.001), were reported more frequently with CHL than with NL. Of nursing staff responding to a product evaluation survey, 95.2% preferred the study over control device. The projected annual incremental cost to our institution for hospitalwide implementation of NL for intermittent access for peripheral infusions was estimated at $82,845, or $230 per 1,000 patient days. CONCLUSIONS: A needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions is effective in reducing percutaneous injuries to staff and is not associated with an increase in either insertion-site complications or nosocomial bacteremia. Institutions should consider these data, available institutional resources, and institution-specific data regarding the frequency and risk of intermittent access-device-related injuries and other types of sharps injuries in their staff when selecting the above or other safety devices.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on staff- and patient-related complications of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions. DESIGN: A 6-month cross-over clinical trial (phase I, 13 weeks; phase II, 12 weeks) of a needleless intermittent intravenous access system (NL; study device) compared to a conventional heparin-lock system (CHL, control device) was performed during 1991 on 16 medical and surgical units. A random selection of patients was assessed for local intravenous-site complications; all patients were assessed for the development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. Staff were assessed for percutaneous injuries and participated in completion of product evaluations. A cost analysis of the study compared to the control device was performed. SETTING: A 1,100-bed, teaching, referral medical center. PATIENTS AND STAFF PARTICIPANTS: 594 patients during 602 patient admissions, comprising a random sample of all patients with a study or control device inserted within a previous 24-hour period on study and control units, were assessed for local complications. The 16 units included adult inpatient general medicine, surgical, and subspecialty units. Pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, and intensive-care units were excluded. All patients on study and control units were assessed for development of nosocomial bacteremia and device-related complications. All staff who utilized, manipulated, or may have been exposed to sharps on study and control units were assessed for percutaneous injuries. Nursing staff completed product evaluations. INTERVENTION: The study device, a needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve, was compared to the control device, a conventional heparin lock, for peripheral infusions. RESULTS: During the study, 35 percutaneous injuries were reported. Eight injuries were CHL-related; no NL-related injuries were reported (P=.007). An evaluation of 602 patient admissions, 1,134 intermittent access devices, and 2,268 observed indwelling device days demonstrated more pain at the insertion site for CHL than NL; however, no differences in objective signs of phlebitis were noted. Of 773 episodes of positive blood cultures on study and control units, 6 (0.8%) were device-related (assessed by blinded investigator), with no difference between NL and CHL. Complications, including difficulty with infusion (P<.001) and disconnection of intravenous tubing from device (P<.001), were reported more frequently with CHL than with NL. Of nursing staff responding to a product evaluation survey, 95.2% preferred the study over control device. The projected annual incremental cost to our institution for hospitalwide implementation of NL for intermittent access for peripheral infusions was estimated at $82,845, or $230 per 1,000 patient days. CONCLUSIONS: A needleless intermittent intravenous access system with a reflux valve for peripheral infusions is effective in reducing percutaneous injuries to staff and is not associated with an increase in either insertion-site complications or nosocomial bacteremia. Institutions should consider these data, available institutional resources, and institution-specific data regarding the frequency and risk of intermittent access-device-related injuries and other types of sharps injuries in their staff when selecting the above or other safety devices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032085958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032085958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9669621

AN - SCOPUS:0032085958

VL - 19

SP - 401

EP - 406

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 6

ER -