I am trialing both products on pediatric PICC line patients (>2 months). I've read the information, and am leaning toward the use of one of them. BUT - I just wanted to ask all of you (no reps from 3M or J&J, please) what your experiences have been. There are positive and negative aspects to each of them, especially in a pediatric population.Â
SO..... do you use one product over the other, and why?
I work at a University Hospital, we have used both the chg and biopatch on patients. Our team likes the biopatch over the chg and uses the biopatch predominately. The chg is difficult to remove from the catheter and skin, despite the use of alcohol like the manufacturer states. I would hate to remove it from the pediatric population. We have better results with biopatch as well.
Beth Ferguson, RN, CRNI
Indiana University Hospital
elizabeth ferguson
Our Hospital could not be convinced to use Biopatch since they could not see the site. We recently started using the CHG and I love it. The gel does stick but just remeber to remove it "low and slow" and I have not had a problem. We use it on adult and pediatric paitents.
Rose Galyan RN, BSN, CRNI
Speciality Practice Nurse
Vascular Access Team
Indiana University Hospital Bloomington
[email protected]
I manage the Infusion Teams at 2 campuses for our Health System. We place approximately 50 PICC's per month. We currently use biopatch on all central lines but I am considering a trial of the CHG dressing for 2 reasons.
1. The biopatch raises the access needle on ports a bit high and they have a tendency to rock and not be stable and this is unacceptable.
2. If we change to the CHG for our PICC sites, we could eliminate the use of 2 devices - the biopatch and the stat lock as the CHG dressing accomplishes both tasks.
K.Mills,RN
Western Md. Health System