Simulation training to improve aseptic non-touch technique and success during intravenous cannulation—effect on hospital-acquired blood stream infection and knowledge retention after 6 months: The snowball effect theory
Background: Intravenous cannulation is a common procedure and a valuable skill in the neonatal intensive care unit. Standardized procedure and personnel training are needed in the unit to prevent hospital-acquired blood stream infections. Hence, we evaluated the effect of training using a low-fideli...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of vascular access 2021-05, Vol.22 (3), p.353-358 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background:
Intravenous cannulation is a common procedure and a valuable skill in the neonatal intensive care unit. Standardized procedure and personnel training are needed in the unit to prevent hospital-acquired blood stream infections. Hence, we evaluated the effect of training using a low-fidelity simulation on the improvement of the aseptic non-touch technique during intravenous cannulation and knowledge retention after 6 months.
Methods:
The study was conducted in a tertiary care neonatal unit from June 2017 to July 2018. All the staff nurses and junior resident doctors posted in the neonatal intensive care were included in the study. A protocol and checklist score sheet was developed. The score sheet consisted of 23 items with a total score of 46. Participants were expected to obtain a minimum of 80%. A pre-test was conducted initially, followed by a formal training and then a post-test. The NITA newborn venous access mannequin was used to facilitate the training. A re-training for new nurses was conducted after 6 months. Data were analyzed using paired t-test.
Results:
A total of 29 doctors and nurses were enrolled in the training. The mean pre-test score was 29.93 compared to 42.66 in the post-test scores (mean difference 12.24(95% confidence interval: 9.39–16.05), p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1129-7298 1724-6032 |
DOI: | 10.1177/1129729820938202 |