We used the same catheter your speaking of at my last job. I believe, that nobody brings a bad product to market. They all have possibilties for patient care improvement. What needs to be looked at , is cost/benefit ratio. Is the antimicrobial PICC going to fair better than a regular PICC when excellent care and maintenance is practiced. I don't know, but I think not. We went through many years of PICC insertion and usage with just a tegaderm and PICCs did not have a huge infection issue. So, I ask: are we just bandaiding a problem?
my problem is our corporate office wants to change what all our hospitals are currently using here in Ohio to antimicrobial Piccs. It’s a large system and the conference calls we all have been involved in are very biased even though they want to take in account the opinion of the experts. They are siting the CDC recommendations and clearly told them there recommendations do not state to change. I have emailed them for clarification and they state they are only recommendations. I just think they were offered a large discount by bundling CVCs and PICC’s. We don’t have a problem with infections so why change our whole health system?
i was trying to reach out to others that may have used the Antimicrobial PICC’s for any pros or cons. Thanks
All standards and guidelines are voluntary compliance. There is no law compelling any organization to follow them. But all are major documents used to measure practice when something goes wrong especially in lawsuits.
Here's what I have observed. Administration gets information and they feel that by proposing these measures and it looks good that they are "doing something" to combat CLABSI. But you said something that negates that logic. You stated that your organization does not have a CLABSI problem. Correct me if I'm wrong but recommendations I have read always stated if you continue to see increases in CLABSI's then you should go to ..antimicrobial catheters, etc. If your institution has a great care and maintenance system, then why would you need to swith to a more expensive catheter?
Lynn is correct. The CDC has recommendations for CLABSI control not laws. So adherence is voluntary based on your hospital. They should invest money they save into keeping the experienced nurses and continue with your CLABSI free enviroment
Are there any current studies or literature to support the use of coated PICCS vs non-coated PICCs for reduction/prevention of CLABSIs? My organization is trying to push coated PICCs as well. I have only been able to find literature on CLABSI reduction using coated CVCs.
We use these caheters because we had a few patients whom developed thrombosis. CHG+ is also antithrombotic which is emitted for 30 days from the catheter. We have had good success with the catheter. We do try to place the smallest catheter with least amount of lumens as is recommended.
We started using these in 2017 only for patients with high risk for DVTs. We have reduced our DVT rates by 2/3, and sustained that change. Using them for every patient doesnt make sense because you can't use them for patients with a sulfa allergy. If you use the Sherlock system, it is incompatible with this catheter, which is another reason not to use them exclusively.
We used the same catheter your speaking of at my last job. I believe, that nobody brings a bad product to market. They all have possibilties for patient care improvement. What needs to be looked at , is cost/benefit ratio. Is the antimicrobial PICC going to fair better than a regular PICC when excellent care and maintenance is practiced. I don't know, but I think not. We went through many years of PICC insertion and usage with just a tegaderm and PICCs did not have a huge infection issue. So, I ask: are we just bandaiding a problem?
my problem is our corporate office wants to change what all our hospitals are currently using here in Ohio to antimicrobial Piccs. It’s a large system and the conference calls we all have been involved in are very biased even though they want to take in account the opinion of the experts. They are siting the CDC recommendations and clearly told them there recommendations do not state to change. I have emailed them for clarification and they state they are only recommendations. I just think they were offered a large discount by bundling CVCs and PICC’s. We don’t have a problem with infections so why change our whole health system?
i was trying to reach out to others that may have used the Antimicrobial PICC’s for any pros or cons. Thanks
All standards and guidelines are voluntary compliance. There is no law compelling any organization to follow them. But all are major documents used to measure practice when something goes wrong especially in lawsuits.
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
Here's what I have observed. Administration gets information and they feel that by proposing these measures and it looks good that they are "doing something" to combat CLABSI. But you said something that negates that logic. You stated that your organization does not have a CLABSI problem. Correct me if I'm wrong but recommendations I have read always stated if you continue to see increases in CLABSI's then you should go to ..antimicrobial catheters, etc. If your institution has a great care and maintenance system, then why would you need to swith to a more expensive catheter?
Lynn is correct. The CDC has recommendations for CLABSI control not laws. So adherence is voluntary based on your hospital. They should invest money they save into keeping the experienced nurses and continue with your CLABSI free enviroment
Are there any current studies or literature to support the use of coated PICCS vs non-coated PICCs for reduction/prevention of CLABSIs? My organization is trying to push coated PICCs as well. I have only been able to find literature on CLABSI reduction using coated CVCs.
We use these caheters because we had a few patients whom developed thrombosis. CHG+ is also antithrombotic which is emitted for 30 days from the catheter. We have had good success with the catheter. We do try to place the smallest catheter with least amount of lumens as is recommended.
We started using these in 2017 only for patients with high risk for DVTs. We have reduced our DVT rates by 2/3, and sustained that change. Using them for every patient doesnt make sense because you can't use them for patients with a sulfa allergy. If you use the Sherlock system, it is incompatible with this catheter, which is another reason not to use them exclusively.