An ultrsound would be a much better investment. It could be used for IV access and the docs could use it for multiple things also. It is my opinion that these devices work well on small thin arms, like those of an infant, or maybe a thin elderly patient, but most of the time, if you can visualize a vein with a transilluminator on a regular sized adult or child, you can see and/or feel it also. The ultrasound would be a guarenteed access no matter what patient you are sticking regaurdless of size or age. If you take a close look at the money you spend on supplies used for multiple sticks, nursing time spent trying, tests and medications limited or not done due to lack of access, and medications wasted due to infiltrations, not to mention injuries, I am sure you could show cost justification for the ultrasound. Good luck!
Sorry Heather, I disagree. Infrared light for transillumination of peripheral veins is a technology that should be considered. This is a lot more successful that using visible light to transilluminte veins. I am giving a presentation on this topic at INS this year. Not many studies available yet. Two different types of technology - reflective and transillumination. Many different issues and techniques with each. Lynn
Have tried a venoscope II transilluminator and hated it. The light made me nauseated. I just use an old fashioned goose neck lamp for IV's and reserve the sonosite for PICCs and the occasional really hard IV.
I look forward to your presentation Lynn. I have not seen anything in this area that has impressed me much except for that one machine that was at AVA last year that was infrared technology. It was much to large to pull around though. They said they were working on a smaller version. I just felt that the ultrasound in an ER would beneficial, and therefore show cost justification for a more useful machine in more areas then just vascular access.
An ultrsound would be a much better investment. It could be used for IV access and the docs could use it for multiple things also. It is my opinion that these devices work well on small thin arms, like those of an infant, or maybe a thin elderly patient, but most of the time, if you can visualize a vein with a transilluminator on a regular sized adult or child, you can see and/or feel it also. The ultrasound would be a guarenteed access no matter what patient you are sticking regaurdless of size or age. If you take a close look at the money you spend on supplies used for multiple sticks, nursing time spent trying, tests and medications limited or not done due to lack of access, and medications wasted due to infiltrations, not to mention injuries, I am sure you could show cost justification for the ultrasound. Good luck!
Heather
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, NPD-BC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com
Office Phone 770-358-7861
Have tried a venoscope II transilluminator and hated it. The light made me nauseated. I just use an old fashioned goose neck lamp for IV's and reserve the sonosite for PICCs and the occasional really hard IV.
I look forward to your presentation Lynn. I have not seen anything in this area that has impressed me much except for that one machine that was at AVA last year that was infrared technology. It was much to large to pull around though. They said they were working on a smaller version. I just felt that the ultrasound in an ER would beneficial, and therefore show cost justification for a more useful machine in more areas then just vascular access.
Heather