Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16544656

A structured learning programme for venepuncture and cannulation.

Abstract

This article discusses a structured learning programme that offers a standardised assessment for all healthcare staff to learn venepuncture and/or cannulation. Nurses from four NHS trusts in London and the south east, with a special interest and expertise in cannulation and venepuncture, devised the programme to reduce the need for repeated training and assessment when staff take up new posts within these trusts. The authors in their respective trusts have used the tool over a four-year period and findings from a study in Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust are presented to demonstrate its use by staff. The tool has recently been reviewed by its authors and is being disseminated to organisations across the United Kingdom (UK). These organisations will evaluate it, with a long-term objective to standardise the training and assessment of venepuncture and cannulation across the UK.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mary Collins, Sarah Phillips, Lisa Dougherty, Anne de Verteuil, Wendy Morris. A structured learning programme for venepuncture and cannulation.. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.03.20.26.34.c4086

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic balloon dilation was introduced as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and avoid undesirable effects due to an incompetent sphincter. Endoscopic balloon dilation has been largely abandoned by USA endoscopists due to increased risks of pancreatitis noted in one multicentre trial, but is still practiced in parts of Asia and Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the management of common bile duct stones. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until January 2004. We hand searched Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (1983-2002), read through bibliographies of all included randomised clinical trials, and contacted all primary authors regarding missed randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in removal of common bile duct stones irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection was done by two independent authors for decisions on study inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. When there was a non-resolvable discrepancy, the third author made the final decision. Analysis was run with RevMan Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen randomised trials met our inclusion criteria (1768 participants). Less than half of the trials reported adequate methods of randomisation and only two trials used blinded outcome assessment. Endoscopic balloon dilation is statistically less successful for stone removal (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97), requires higher rates of mechanical lithotripsy (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.66), and carries a higher risk of pancreatitis (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.89). Conversely, endoscopic balloon dilation has statistically significant lower rates of bleeding. When a fixed-effect model is applied endoscopic balloon dilation leads to significantly less short-term infection and long-term infection. There was no statistically significant difference with regards to mortality, perforation, or total short-term complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic balloon dilation is slightly less successful than endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone extraction and more risky regarding pancreatitis. However, endoscopic balloon dilation seems to have a clinical role in patients who have coagulopathy, who are at risk for infection, and possibly in those who are older.

Catheterization↗

Catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and other catheter complications in children with cancer.

PURPOSE: Asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a complication of central venous catheter (CVC) use in children with cancer, but its clinical significance is not well defined. Children with CVCs commonly experience two other CVC-related complications: occlusion and infection. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of these two complications and their association with DVT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who were diagnosed with cancer. Data collected included number and type of catheter insertions, duration of use, reason for removal, associated catheter complications, and demographic information. RESULTS: Catheters were placed in 287 patients for a total of 128,403 days (mean, 290 +/- 269 days/catheter). Of 21 patients (7%) diagnosed with CVC-related DVT, only five had specific signs or symptoms. Nineteen (90%) of these 21 children had prior history of catheter occlusion, and 10 of the 19 also experienced infection. Ten children (48%) were not identified as having DVT until they had had multiple catheters with recurrent complications. Odds of having DVT were higher in patients who had a single catheter complicated by repeated occlusions (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; P = .001) or infection (OR, 2.2; P = .016). Patients experiencing both infection and occlusion were at 6.4 times (P < .0001) higher risk of developing DVT. CONCLUSION: Children with CVC-related DVT frequently have recurrent catheter complications. Unrecognized thrombosis may therefore be clinically important. Prospective studies are needed to determine if identification and treatment of occult DVT will prevent additional CVC-related complications and prolong the duration of catheter use.

Catheterization↗