Nursing Studies About Central Venous Catheter Care: a Literature Review and Recommendations for Clinical Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Caring Sciences May-August 2015 Volume 8 Issue 2 Page | 461 Review Article Nursing Studies about Central Venous Catheter Care: A Literature Review and Recommendations for Clinical Practice Nurten Kalender, RN, PhD Student Medical Nursing, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, School of Nursing, Ankara, Turkey Nuran Tosun, RN, PhD Associate Professor of Medical Nursing, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, School of Nursing, Ankara, Turkey Correspondence: Nurten Kalender, PhD Student of Medical Nursing, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, School of Nursing, Gülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi, Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu 06010 Etlik, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Introduction: Evidence-based studies performed by nurses on central venous catheter care are limited in number. Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature data about nurses’ responsibilities on each step of the care of central venous catheter and determining the gaps in the relevant data or issues to be re-evaluated, which could be helpful in future studies. Methodology: A literature review was assessed. Different themes were extracted and recommended for clinical practice. A search strategy was carried out for the period 2007–2012 utilising three computerised databases: MEDLINE, PubMed and SCIENCE DIRECT. Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for review. Three prominent themes were identified in the literature related to: (1) Measures to Prevent Infection (2) Infection Control of central venous catheter, Results, and Other Findings (3) Applications to Sustain Catheter Flow. Conclusions: According to the results of this study, nursing studies on the some subjects are either absent or inadequate In view of these facts, nurses are required to carry out high-quality evidence-based Randomised Controlled Trials. Keywords: central venous catheter; central venous catheter-associated infections; evidence-based practice; nursing. Introduction On the other hand, there are still some issues such as lock solution and catheter dressing to be clarified in Central venous catheters (CVC), the use of which the care of CVC. began after the second half of 1900s, have become indispensable in the care of critically ill patients as A systematic review reported the inadequacy of part of the developments in intensive care units evidence on the superiority of heparin to saline (ICU) (Ülger, 2006). These catheters are widely used solution in the prevention of catheter occlusion for measurement of central venous pressure, medical (Mitchell et al., 2009). Another systematic review treatment, infusion of blood and blood products, long reported that there was no adequate data on the term parenteral nutrition, and when the peripheral choice of the most appropriate dressing to be used in venous route is inappropriate (Hamilton, 2004). catheter care (Gillies et al., 2003). In 2003, The American Society of Clinical Oncology The literature and evidence-based studies performed (ASCO), and in 2004, The Oncology Nursing by nurse on CVC care are limited The nurses who are Society published guidelines for nurses who are the responsible for CVC care need to pursue prospective, primary responsibles for CVC care (Macklin, 2010). multi-centered and randomized studies on protocols These guidelines present all the relevant evidence on for catheter-site cleansing, type and frequency of issues such as catheter dressing, maintenance of application of lock solutions, the importance of blood catheter flow, obtaining blood samples, management controls, and training of patients’ families (Camp- of complications, and prevention of catheter Sorrell, 2007). The aim of this study was to occlusion (Camp-Sorrell, 2007). systematically evaluate the literature data about www.internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org International Journal of Caring Sciences May-August 2015 Volume 8 Issue 2 Page | 462 nurses’ responsibilities on each step of the care of given and the results were evaluated. The studies CVC such as skin cleansing, use of disinfections, were evaluated under three main headings. sterile barrier precautions, hands hygiene, change of 1. Measures to Prevent Infection sets, obtaining blood sample, material of dressing, frequency of change of dressing, using lock In the selected studies, training for the CVC- solutions. associated infection control was given, and the results were evaluated. The training included the Methods headings of skin cleansing, use of disinfectants, Screening and Selection of Studies sterile barrier precautions, hand hygiene, changing sets, obtaining blood samples, dressing materials Studies published in the last five years that had used used, and frequency of changing the dressings (Table the keywords “central venous catheter” and “central 4). venous catheter care+nurse”, were screened in the databases of Medline, Pubmed and Science Direct Skin Cleansing and were included in the study (Table 1). All of the In a SES, the method of skin cleansing was described clinical environment such as oncology, haematology in steps (Tsuchida et al., 2007). Other studies had not or ICU and patients were included in the study. been mentioned method of skin cleansing (Charrier Pediatric patients and patients who have port catheter et al., 2008; Faruqi et al., 2012; Lobo et al., 2010; were excluded. The reference lists of all studies Lopez, 2011; Møller and Adamsen, 2010; Oran and included were also screened in order to find Eser, 2008; Schallom et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2012) additional relevant researchs. The titles and abstracts of all of the electronically screened and selected Use of Disinfectants articles were independently evaluated by each The disinfectants used in SESs were tap water and researcher. In the case where the abstract was short soap (no property given), 10% povidone-iodine, 70% or unclear, the complete text was read for evaluation. alcohol, 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine gluconate, The reasons for studies among the screened having 0.5% chlorhexidine, 2% chlorhexidine and 78% been discarded were noted. Consequently, the results ethanol (Lobo et al., 2010; Lopez, 2011; Tsuchida et of the researchers’ evaluation were compared, and al., 2007; Wu et al., 2012). The name of the used the full texts of the included articles were obtained disinfectant had not been mentioned in one SES (Figure 1). There were no conflicts of opinions (Faruqi et al., 2012). The names of the disinfectants between the researchers. used had not been mentioned in the RCTs and non- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria RCTs (Charrier et al., 2008; Møller and Adamsen, 2010; Oran and Eser, 2008; Schallom et al., 2012). Papers on CVC and nursing care that were in the English language were included in the study. The Sterile Barrier Precautions Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) the Non- In three SESs, the effect of maximum sterile barrier randomized Controlled Trials (non-RCTs) and the precautions (sterile gowns, sterile gloves, masks, Quasi Experimental Studies (SES) comprised the sterile sheets) on the CVC-associated infection rate systematically studied material. Six articles that were had been discussed (Lobo et al., 2010; Lopez, 2011; not in the English language, 26 articles with Wu et al., 2012). In the study performed by Tsuchida inappropriate method, and 21 articles not related to et al. (2007) compared the effects of maximum nurses were discarded (Table 2). Papers were sterile barrier precautions and minimum sterile excluded if they were not belonging to nurses, barrier precautions (sterile gloves and sheets). In the inappropriate method and English of publication rest of the selected studies, there was no mention of language. sterile barrier precautions (Charrier et al., 2008; ults Faruqi et al., 2012; Møller and Adamsen, 2010; Oran and Eser, 2008; Schallom et al., 2012). This systematic study included nine papers published between years 2007 and 2012. The designs, country Hand Hygiene of origin and the time durations of the studies have In the SESs, alcohol-based gel or in case of dirty been summarized in Table 3. Most of the studies hands, soap, water and soap (no property given), and were semi-experimental. In six studies, training for chlorhexidine gluconate were used (Lobo et al., the prevention of CVC-associated infection was 2010; Tsuchida et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2012). www.internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org International Journal of Caring Sciences May-August 2015 Volume 8 Issue 2 Page | 463 The importance of hand hygiene was emphasized in no leakage, dirt or loosening) and transparent three studies. However, the used disinfectants had dressings every seven days (when there is no not been described (Faruqi et al., 2012; Lopez, 2011; leakage, dirt or loosening) (Lobo et al., 2010). Wu et Møller and Adamsen, 2010). There was no mention al. (2012) discussed the use of transparent dressings, of hand hygiene in the remaining studies (Charrier et but did not make mention of the frequency of change. al., 2008; Oran and Eser, 2008; Schallom et al., In two of nine studies, it was emphasized the 2012). importance of dressings, but they did not report the Change of Sets frequency of changing dressings (Faruqi et al., 2012; Lopez, 2011; Møller and Adamsen, 2010). There was In the SES study performed by Lobo et al. (2010) no mention of dressing materials and frequency of reported that the sets should normally be changed dressing change in the other studies (Charrier et al., every 72 hours, in case of infusion of blood, blood 2008; Oran and Eser, 2008;