Forum topic

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
daylily
Length of port dwell without being flushed (use or not use)

Does anyone know of publications that address the length of dwell a port may be in a patient, not flushed, and still considered safe for use?  Specifically, if a patient does not follow the manufacturers indication for use and have the port flushed routinely, is there a time frame where it is still "safe" to use from an infection prevention aspect?  I'm worried about the development of Biofilm and disseminating into the patient. 

lynncrni
Many years ago there was a

Many years ago there was a published study about the lengths of time between routine flushes for implanted ports. I think the longest time they reported was over 200 days. Can't remember the study details. I don't think there is a "safe" time established. I would access it, aspirate first, then flush a small amount and aspirate again. Then flush again. If this port has not been used for an extended period, it sounds like it is time to have it removed, especially if there is no blood return. Lynn

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

Christine Thomas
Other precautions we have made

I have encountered this problem where a port was present and no options for PIV.  Hadn't been used for over 6 months and no flushes.  Forgotten and patient was not communicable.  We asked physician and he turned around and asked us.  Because there was no literature to find on this I was a little skeptical but I checked his temp and WBC to make sure he had no indication of infection.  We were able to aspirate blood which we discarded and then flushed.  We were able to use this access for his entire hospitalization.  We, however, made arrangements to have it removed upon discharge.  I guess we were lucky but still nervous when we encounter this.

 

Log in or register to post comments