Our project supports current clinical recommendation that a closed PIVC system, regardless of type, is not only safer and cost-effective but also preferred by patients and clinicians” Galang et al (2019).
BACKGROUND: There was an increase in peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) complications and adverse patient events after product conversion during the merger between a rural hospital and a larger hospital system. A review of the existing literature identified a gap in evidence evaluating 2 closed PIVC systems compared with an open PIVC system.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the current project was to ascertain whether open or closed PIVCs are best for patients, staff, and the health care system in terms of 3 main criteria: quality, safety, and cost.
METHODS: A prospective, 2-site randomized controlled trial was used to compare outcomes.
RESULTS: There were no differences in the complication rates between catheter types. There was a statistically significant increase in blood leakage and a decrease in clinician satisfaction with the open-system catheter.
CONCLUSIONS: Our project supports current clinical recommendation that a closed PIVC system, regardless of type, is not only safer and cost-effective but also preferred by patients and clinicians.
You may also be interested in…
Galang, H., Hubbard-Wright, C., Hahn, D.S., Yost, G., Yoder, L., Maduro, R.S., Morgan, M.K. and Zimbro, K.S. (2019) A Randomized Trial Comparing Outcomes of 3 Types of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. July 8th. doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000421. .