Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To develop a new type infusion set and apply it to the clinic, as well as explore its effectiveness in the prevention from needle stick injuries.
Methods: A total of 200 inpatients who were in need of intravenous infusion with a disposable infusion needle were included and randomly divided into two groups: intervention group and control group. Disposable infusion needles with a separation-free safety tube were used in the intervention group, whereas conventional ones were used in the control group. Then, effects of the two types of infusion sets were observed and compared.
Results: As for the operation time for infusion, it was (82.19 ± 1.80) seconds in the intervention group and (83.02 ± 1.83) seconds in the control group, with the difference statistically significant ( < 0.05). Besides, the exposure time of the needles after infusion in the intervention group was (3.36 ± 0.17) seconds while (18.85 ± 1.18) seconds in the control group; the difference between which was statistically significant ( < 0.05). In terms of the time for needle disposal, (18.60 ± 0.84) seconds was required in the intervention group, while for the control group, it took (18.85 ± 1.18) seconds, and the difference between two groups was of statistical significance as well ( < 0.05). Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference in the accidental slip rate of the needles as that turned out 0% in both groups ( > 0.05). It was worth noting that the block rate of the disposed needles in the intervention group was 100%.
Conclusion: The separation-free safety tube on the disposable infusion needle could instantly block the sharp needle after infusion, which reduces the needle exposure time and lowers the risk of needle stick injuries. In the meantime, the safety tube is convenient to use, and its application can shorten the time for infusion and needle disposal, consequently improving the working efficiency of nurses. As the new type safety tube has above advantages and would not raise the risk of needle slippage, it is worthy of clinical promotion.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246391 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/6896517 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!