Name Daniil G Konstantinov Purpose Each student will use the information, strategies, and research tools presented in the Library presentations to complete a literature search with annotated bibliography Students will acquire the skill of searching a database using specific key words and limiters/expanders. Annotated bibliographies may summarize, assess or evaluate a published article. Keep this in mind as you develop your annotated bibliographies.
Remember that the annotations you include in your bibliography should reflect your EBP project and/or the guidelines of your assignment. Students will submit their Literature Search with Annotated Bibliography via the assignment link for grading. Instructions Complete each section of this form. PICO question In hospitalized patients with peripheral intravenous catheters does replacing them every 96 hours increase or decrease the risk of infection or phlebitis Write down 3-5 key terms you will use for searching peripheral intravenous catheters, infection, phlebitis, infiltration, routine replacement. Go to CINAHL, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost databases and conduct your search using the key terms you identified above. Google Scholar is also a great database. Locate 5 RESEARCH articles pertinent to your PICO question. Remember, look for studies by nurses.
Prepare an annotated bibliography. Remember this is a different format and there is an example to follow within this weeks module. Depending on the PICO questions and purpose of the bibliography, some annotations may summarize, some may assess or evaluate a source, and some may reflect on the sources possible uses for the project at hand.
Some annotations may address all three of these steps. Consider the purpose of your annotated bibliography when deciding how much information to include in your annotations. Annotated bibliography should contain between 2 3 succinct paragraphs (5-6 sentences each paragraph) for each of the five articles that you address. The bibliography should also be alphabetized. Annotated Bibliography Reference 1 Catney, M.
R., Hillis, S., Wakefield, B., Simpson, L., Domino, L., Keller, S., Connelly, T., .
.. Wagner, K.
(2001). Relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter Dwell time and the development of phlebitis and infiltration.Journal of Infusion Nursing the Official Publication of the Infusion Nurses Society,24,5. Student name Daniil Konstantinov Annotation In the research article Relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter dwell time and the development of phlebitis and infiltration Catney et al. (2001) set out to evaluate whether extending the IV catheter dwell time past 72 hours is associated with increased rates of phlebitis or infiltration. This study was also conducted in medical/surgical units, at a 110-bed teaching hospital with an IV team. Drug irritation was the most significant predictor of phlebitis and infiltration rates in this study. The findings were that when certain variables influencing the risk of complication development are taken into consideration, an IV catheter can safely be extended beyond 72 hours.
This study also emphasizes that it is important to evaluate risk factors for developing a complication. When IV catheters were used for saline locks only and the IV catheters in alert patients had less chance of developing major complications when allowed to dwell beyond 72 hours. However, the study observed that IV catheters through which irritating solutions were infusing had difficulty remaining problem free for even 72-hours. Reference 2 Rickard, C. M.
, McCann, D., Munnings, J., McGrail, M.
R. (2010). Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite a randomised controlled trial.Bmc Medicine,8.
Bottom of Form Student name Daniil Konstantinov Annotation This research article Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite is a randomized controlled trial. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral intravenous catheters routine resite with removal on clinical indication on intravenous complications in a hospital setting without an IV team. This study was on 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomized to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication as necessary (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). The results were intravenous catheter complication rates were 68 per 1,000 days for clinically indicated and 66 per 1,000 days for routine replacement. In conclusion this study contributes to the growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral intravenous catheters with removal only on clinical indication.
In addition, clinically indicated resites would achieve savings in staff time, equipment, and patient discomfort. Reference 3 Rickard, C. M., Webster, J., Wallis, M. C., Marsh, N., McGrail, M.
R., French, V., Foster, L., Whitby, M. (2012). Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters a randomised controlled equivalence trial.Lancet (london, England),380,9847, 1066-74. Student name Daniil Konstantinov Annotation In the research article Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters a randomised controlled equivalence trial Rickard et al.
(2012) set to prove the hypothesis that clinically indicated catheter replacement is of equal benefit to routine replacement. Especially since routine replacement increases health-care costs and staff workload and requires patients to undergo repeated invasive procedures. The method of this study was randomized, non-blinded trial that recruited adults greater than 18 years old with an intravenous catheter of expected use longer than 4 days from three hospitals in Queensland, Australia, between May 2008, and Sept 2009. The findings were from all 3283 patients and 5907 catheters were included in their analysis. Phlebitis occurred in 114 of 1593 (7) patients in the clinically indicated group and in 114 of 1690 (7) patients in the routine replacement group. An identical finding. Therefore, it may be interpreted from this study that peripheral intravenous catheters can be removed as clinically indicated.
This policy will avoid millions of catheter insertions, associated discomfort, and substantial costs in both equipment and staff workload. However ongoing close monitoring needs to continue with prompt removal for complications. Reference 4Top of Form Stevens, C., Milner, K. A., Trudeau, J. (2018).
Routine Versus Clinically Indicated Short Peripheral Catheter Replacement An Evidence-based Practice Project.Journal of Infusion Nursing,41,3, 198-204. Student name Daniil Konstantinov Annotation The research article Routine Versus Clinically Indicated Short Peripheral Catheter Replacement An Evidence-based Practice Project was the closest article to answering my original PICO question.
This study also compared clinically indicated short peripheral catheter (SPC) replacement, with changing SPCs routinely every 96 hours. They used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of SPC replacement when clinically indicated. As a result of the change in practice, there were no SPC-related infections, monthly phlebitis rates ranged from 1.9 to 3.5, and SPC use decreased by 14.2. This resulted in an estimated cost savings of 2100 and 70 hours of nursing time saved. However, this study also covers the reasons for SPC replacement before 96 hours.
These include signs and symptoms of phlebitis, patient pulling out SPC, malfunctioning SPC, patient preference for change, and hospital policies for SPC replacement for outbound transfers. Reference 5 Webster J., Clarke S., Paterson D., Hutton A.
, Dyk S., Gale C. (2008). Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 337-339. doi https//doi.org/10.
1136/bmj.a339 Student name Daniil Konstantinov Annotation In their randomized controlled trial, Webster et al. (2008) set out to compare routine replacement of intravenous peripheral catheters with replacement only when clinically indicated.
This study took place in a tertiary hospital in Australia. The participants were 755 medical/surgical patients. Of those, 379 allocated to catheter replacement only when clinically indicated and 376 allocated to routine care of catheter (control group). The results were catheters were removed because of phlebitis or infiltration from 123 of 376 (33) patients in the control group compared with 143 of 379 (38) patients in the intervention group the difference was not significant. In conclusion replacing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated has no effect on the incidence of failure, based on a composite measure of phlebitis or infiltration. They concluded that larger trials are needed to test this finding using phlebitis alone as a more clinically meaningful outcome. Reflection Answer the following questions about your searching experience What was the most challenging part of this assignment Why The most challenging part of the assignment for me was once I found an article not being able to access it due to not having membership to a particular website. Another challenge initially was finding research that was recently published.
What surprised you I was genuinely surprised of how many research studies have been conducted on my PICO question topic. I was surprised to see that there are many articles published on the topic as well as may similar topics. The research topic from Stevens (2018) in particular was very informative. What happened when you used your key terms Were they appropriate, why or why not I was extremely satisfied with the key terms I used. The terms peripheral intravenous catheters, infection, phlebitis, infiltration helped me find 4 of the 5 references I used for this assignment. Although I didnt have access initially, I was able to find the articles through the universitys databases.
How did you ensure you had obtained research articles This process was simple for me given I used Google Scholar for my search. All of the results from this search engine yielded research articles for me. If I had any doubt I would follow the link and confirm indeed it was a research article. What resources were most beneficial to you As I mentioned above Google Scholar was my most beneficial resource. I found all of the references I needed using this resource.
However, I wouldnt have been able to access three of these sources had it not been for the free database provided by Boise States library. What advice would you give a co-worker who wanted to search for a research article The advice I would give a co-worker would be to not hesitate to search for research articles. It really isnt as complicated as it may sound. Also, if they are unable to obtain free access to the articles to try other search engines using the same title or even through their university if they are a student. Attach a reference page in proper APA 6th ed. format.
(See Below) References Catney, M. R., Hillis, S., Wakefield, B., Simpson, L.
, Domino, L., Keller, S., Connelly, T., …
Wagner, K. (2001). Relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter Dwell time and the development of phlebitis and infiltration.Journal of Infusion Nursing the Official Publication of the Infusion Nurses Society,24,5. Rickard, C. M., McCann, D., Munnings, J.
, McGrail, M. R. (2010). Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite a randomised controlled trial.Bmc Medicine,8. Rickard, C. M.
, Webster, J., Wallis, M. C., Marsh, N., McGrail, M.
R., French, V., Foster, L., Whitby, M. (2012). Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters a randomised controlled equivalence trial.
Lancet (london, England),380,9847, 1066-74. Stevens, C., Milner, K. A., Trudeau, J.
(2018). Routine Versus Clinically Indicated Short Peripheral Catheter Replacement An Evidence-based Practice Project.Journal of Infusion Nursing,41,3, 198-204.
Webster J., Clarke S., Paterson D., Hutton A., Dyk S., Gale C. (2008). Routine care of peripheral intravenous catheters versus clinically indicated replacement randomised controlled trial.
BMJ, 337-339. doi https//doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a339 Y, B8L 1(IzZYrH9pd4n(KgVB,lDAeX)Ly5otebW3gpj/gQjZTae9i5j5fE514g7vnO( ,[email protected] /e5sZWfPtfkA0zUw@tAm4T2j 6Q