If Dr. Jarvis comes and presents his "Evidence Based Medicine and the Recently Published Guidelines for Central Line Care" information, make sure you ask him the following:
1. To present all the evidence, not just the data on how good split septum caps are.
2. Other studies including the peer reveiwed literature on ALL the "mechanical or positive caps" and not just the 1 or 2 caps that are associated with bad outcomes.
3. Why, if the Q-Site is as good as he says it is, do the majority of studies on split septum with good outcomes use the Baxter Interlink (needle or blunt cannula access), not the Q-Site?
4. What happens if you put a Q-Site on a line with no clamp, or if the nurse forgets to clamp?
5. What happens at the corners of the split septum of the Q-Site after multiple accesses? They return perfectly to their un-accessed position right? There aren't small holes (larger than bacteria) that start to develop at the corners like the ones seen under electron microscopy?
6. Why is everyting that is not a Q-Site lumped into a different category (who made these categories) as having negative outcomes?
7. Who is providing the funding for these presentations to get their message out?