Loading...
The Effects of Changing IV Access Sites Based on Clinical Assessment versus Timeframe
Piffer, Jessica Ann Samasa, Ramata
Piffer, Jessica Ann
Samasa, Ramata
Citations
Altmetric:
Genre
Poster (Research)
Date
2017
Advisor
Committee member
Department
Nursing
Subject
Permanent link to this record
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/9108
Abstract
About 70% of patients in the acute care setting require a peripheral IV catheter, and approximately 200 million are used in The United States alone each year (Rickard et al., 2012). IV access is crucial to providing patient care and utilized in almost every healthcare setting. Therefore, the purpose of this evidence based literature review was to determine whether or not changing IV access sites based on clinical assessment versus timeframe reduced the occurrence of IV infiltration/phlebitis in hospitalized patients. According to many hospital peripheral line policies, IV access sites must be changed every 4 days regardless of their clinical presentation. This evidence based literature review includes three Level 1 & 2 journal articles that were found upon database searches. The results from these journal articles concluded that there was no difference between changing IV access sites based on clinical assessment versus timeframe in terms of IV infiltration/phlebitis. Based on this conclusion, it is recommended that IV access sites be changed based on clinical assessment, considering IV access sites can last past the 72-96 hour timeframe without complication, or no longer be necessary for patient care within that 72-96 hour timeframe.
Description
Citation
Citation to related work
Has part
ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu