Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:00:15.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of an Educational Program for the Prevention of Colonization of Intravascular Catheters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Francisco Parras ,
Javier Ena ,
Emilio Bouza ,
Maria del Carmen Guerrero ,
Santiago Moreno ,
Teresa Galvez  and
Emilia Cercenado
Francisco Parras*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Javier Ena
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Emilio Bouza
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Maria del Carmen Guerrero
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Santiago Moreno
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Teresa Galvez
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Emilia Cercenado
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
*
Servicio de Microbiología Clínica, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, c/o Dr. Esquerdo, 46.28007 Madrid, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of an educational program for the prevention of catheter colonization.

Design:

Two cross-sectional studies were carried out in a 500-bed randomly selected area of the hospital, separated by an educational program on the care of intravenous lines based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for the control of catheter-related infections.

Setting:

A 2,100-bed urban general hospital affiliated with the University of Madrid (Spain).

Methods:

Characteristics of patients and catheters and appropriateness of catheter care were evaluated. Cultures were taken from the point of insertion of the vascular catheter, the hubs, and infusion fluids. When catheter-associated infection was suspected, the distal end of the catheter was sent for culture and two blood cultures were taken. We compared the clinical and microbiological data before and after carrying out an educational program based on CDC recommendations for the control of catheter-related infections.

Results:

Characteristics of patients and catheters did not differ between the two cross-sectional studies. Compared with baseline data, after the educational program we observed a reduction of inappropriate catheter care, from 83% to 38% (45% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI95], 55% to 35%, P<0.0000), and a reduction in the rate of skin colonization, from 34% to 18% (16% difference, CI95, 26% to 5%, P<0.001). The frequency of phlebitis (15% versus 14%), hub colonizations (12% versus 11%), catheter colonizations (2% versus 1%), and catheter-related bacteremias (0% versus 0%) remained unchanged between the two cross-sectional studies.

Conclusions:

Our educational program improved catheter care and reduced significantly the proportion of skin colonization around the insertion point. However, the educational program did not modify the proportion of hub colonization; because hub colonization has been demonstrated to be a source of line sepsis, our data suggest the need for a specific program directed to the maintenance of catheter hubs.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , April 1994 , pp. 239 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Simmons, BP Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Infections. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 1981.Google Scholar
2. Cercenado, E, Ena, J, Rodrígez-Creíxems, M, Romero, I, Bouza, E. A conservative procedure for the diagnosis of catheter-related infection. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1417–1420.Google Scholar
3. Maki, DG, Weise, CE, Sarafin, HW. A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous catheter-related infection. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1305–1309.Google Scholar
4. Fleiss, JL. A simplification of the classic large sample standard error of a function of multinomial proportions. Am Stat 1982;36:377–378.Google Scholar
5. Roethlisberges, FG, Dickson, WJ, Wright, HA. Management and the Worker. An Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946.Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control. Outline for Surveillance and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control; 1970.Google Scholar
7. Ena, J, Cercenado, E, Martinez, D, Bouza, E. Cross-sectional epidemiology of phlebitis and catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:15–20.Google Scholar
8. Snydman, DR, Reidy, MD, Perry, LK, et al. Safety of changing intravenous (IV) administration sets containing burettes at longer than 48 hour intervals. Infect Control 1987;8:113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Saloheimo, S, Henning, C, Hillborgh, U. Infection risks from cannulae used to maintain intravenous access. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1984;28:199–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Segura, M, Alia, C, Oms, L, Sancho, JJ, Tortes-Rodriguez, JM, Sitges-Serra, A. In vitro experimental study of a new hub model for intravascular catheters and infusion equipment. J Clin Microbiol 1989;27:2656–2659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar