Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection (Review)

Surgical site infection is a serious complication of surgery and is usually associated with increased length of hospital stay for the patient, and also higher hospital costs. The use of an antiseptic solution for preoperative bathing or showering is widely practiced in the belief that it will help to prevent surgical site infections from developing. This review identified seven trials, with over 10,000 patients, that tested skin antiseptics (chlorhexidine solution) against normal soap or no presurgical washing. The review of these trials did not show clear evidence that the use of chlorhexidine solution before surgery was better than other wash products at preventing surgical site infections from developing after surgery

Parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding influenza vaccination for children under five years of age in Australia: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

This systematic review answers the following question:What are the parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about the influenza vaccine in children under five years of age in Australia?. The preliminary search indicated that EBSCOhost (Academic Search Ultimate, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, E-Journals, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection), MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science would be the most suitable databases for the full search. The search for unpublished studies and grey literature will include Google Advanced Search, Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), and Trove. This systematic review will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies with no limitations based on study design including randomised controlled trials, cross sectional studies, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies, phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded theory. This systematic review focuses on parental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding influenza vaccination for children under five years of age in Australia

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)

Background: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. Objectives: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Main results: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. CRBSI was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). Authors' conclusions: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters [Review]

Background US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. Objectives To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re‐siting the catheter routinely. Search methods For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co‐ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Main results Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically‐indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically‐indicated 186/2365; 3‐day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all‐cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically‐indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically‐indicated group (mean difference (MD) ‐6.96, 95% CI ‐9.05 to ‐4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). Authors' conclusions The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re‐sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter‐related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present

The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a hospital avoidance program in a residential aged care facility: a prospective cohort study and modelled decision analysis

Background Residential aged care facility residents experience high rates of hospital admissions which are stressful, costly and often preventable. The EDDIE program is a hospital avoidance initiative designed to enable nursing and care staff to detect, refer and quickly respond to early signals of a deteriorating resident. The program was implemented in a 96-bed residential aged care facility in regional Australia. Methods A prospective pre-post cohort study design was used to collect data on costs of program delivery, hospital admission rates and length of stay for the 12months prior to, and following, the intervention. A Markov decision model was developed to synthesize study data with published literature in order to estimate the costeffectiveness of the program. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were adopted as the measure of effectiveness. Results The EDDIE program was associated with a 19% reduction in annual hospital admissions and a 31% reduction in the average length of stay. The cost-effectiveness analysis found the program to be both more effective and less costly than usual care, with 0.06 QALYs gained and $249,000 health system costs saved in a modelled cohort of 96 residents. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that there was an 86% probability that the program was cost-effective after taking the uncertainty of the model inputs into account. Conclusions This study provides promising evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a nurse led, early intervention program in preventing unnecessary hospital admissions within a residential aged care facility. Further research in multi-site randomised studies is needed to confirm the generalisability of these results

The positive outlook study- a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an online self-management program targeting psychosocial issues for men living with HIV: a study protocol

Background: The emergence of HIV as a chronic condition means that people living with HIV are required to takemore responsibility for the self-management of their condition, including making physical, emotional and socialadjustments. This paper describes the design and evaluation of Positive Outlook, an online program aiming toenhance the self-management skills of gay men living with HIV.Methods/design: This study is designed as a randomised controlled trial in which men living with HIV in Australiawill be assigned to either an intervention group or usual care control group. The intervention group willparticipate in the online group program ‘Positive Outlook’. The program is based on self-efficacy theory and uses aself-management approach to enhance skills, confidence and abilities to manage the psychosocial issues associatedwith HIV in daily life. Participants will access the program for a minimum of 90 minutes per week over seven weeks.Primary outcomes are domain specific self-efficacy, HIV related quality of life, and outcomes of health education.Secondary outcomes include: depression, anxiety and stress; general health and quality of life; adjustment to HIV;and social support. Data collection will take place at baseline, completion of the intervention (or eight weeks postrandomisation) and at 12 week follow-up.Discussion: Results of the Positive Outlook study will provide information regarding the effectiveness of onlinegroup programs improving health related outcomes for men living with HIV

Testing the effectiveness of a Practice Development intervention on changing the culture of evidence based practice in an acute care environment

In this age of evidence-based practice, nurses are increasingly expected to use research evidence in a systematic and judicious way when making decisions about patient care practices. Clinicians recognise the role of research when it provides valid, realistic answers in practical situations. Nonetheless, research is still perceived by some nurses as external to practice and implementing research findings into practice is often difficult. Since its conceptual platform in the 1960s, the emergence and growth of Nursing Development Units, and later, Practice Development Units has been described in the literature as strategic, organisational vehicles for changing the way nurses think about nursing by promoting and supporting a culture of inquiry and research-based practice. Thus, some scholars argue that practice development is situated in the gap between research and practice. Since the 1990s, the discourse has shifted from the structure and outcomes of developing practice to the process of developing practice, using a Practice Development methodology; underpinned by critical social science theory, as a vehicle for changing the culture and context of care. The nursing and practice development literature is dominated by descriptive reports of local practice development activity, typically focusing on reflection on processes or outcomes of processes, and describing perceived benefits. However, despite the volume of published literature, there is little published empirical research in the Australian or international context on the effectiveness of Practice Development as a methodology for changing the culture and context of care - leaving a gap in the literature. The aim of this study was to develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a Practice Development model for clinical practice review and change on changing the culture and context of care for nurses working in an acute care setting. A longitudinal, pre-test/post-test, non-equivalent control group design was used to answer the following research questions: 1. Is there a relationship between nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care and nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? 2. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care? 3. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? Through a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of the findings of past evaluations of Nursing and Practice Development structures and processes, this research has identified key attributes consistent throughout the chronological and theoretical development of Nursing and Practice Development that exemplify a culture and context of care that is conducive to creating a culture of inquiry and evidence-based practice. The study findings were then used in the development, validation and testing of an instrument to measure change in the culture and context of care. Furthermore, this research has also provided empirical evidence of the relationship of the key attributes to each other and to barriers to research and evidence-based practice. The research also provides empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of a Practice Development methodology in changing the culture and context of care. This research is noteworthy in its contribution to advancing the discipline of nursing by providing evidence of the degree to which attributes of the culture and context of care, namely autonomy and control, workplace empowerment and constructive team dynamics, can be connected to engagement with research and evidence-based practice

Imperatives and strategies for developing an evidence-based practice in perioperative nursing

The scope of nursing practice in acute care is continually changing. Practices and protocols that provided guidance yesterday are today modified or abandoned. In addition, everything in acute health comes under the economic microscope. Along with the need to rationalise the health dollar also comes the obligation to continue health care that delivers optimal health outcomes. It is these twin aims that form the basis of evidence-based practice; that is, to provide systematically dveloped guidelines for economically efficient and clinically effective practice in order to achieve desired patient outcomes. By knowing which interventions and practices are efficient and effective, wiser clinical decisions can be made about the distribuiton of limited health care resources. As such, evidence-based practice has become an imperative for health professionals and health service researchers

Letter to the Editor: Phlebitis associated with peripheral intravenous catheters

Malach et al1 suggest that presence of an intravenous peripheral catheter longer than 3 days is a risk factor for phlebitis. A point-prevalence research design was used in their study whereby patients with phlebitis were compared with an unmatched control group of patients who did not have phlebitis. There are significant problems with drawing strong conclusions from such a design, which the authors themselves acknowledge. Other prospective, longitudinal studies have found that it is within the first two days following peripheral catheter insertion that the patient is at highest risk for infection.2-3 These authors surmise that breaching skin integrity, which occurs more frequently with 72 hour changes, may contribute to this result. We have supported their conclusions in a recent randomized controlled trial, where the incidence of phlebitis was similar in the 3-day change group and the change when clinically indicated group.4 Among those who had their peripheral catheter removed for phlebitis, the mean length of time that the catheter was in-situ was 48.7 hours. We believe, if patients are not matched for risk factors that may influence outcomes, incorrect conclusions may be drawn. This could have considerable patient care and economic implications. Consequently, it is important to use the correct study design when trying to understand significant health care questions