Here's that citation, this is the article they were referencing in the IC ezine. I would really like to know if people have made any practice changes based on any of this information.
This is not the split septum/blunt cannula vs the any luer access devices but rather luer access vs positive pressure luer access - it's framing the patient safety concerns differently than I'd heard before. Penny <italic><fontfamily><param>Times</param><x-tad-bigger>Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></italic><fontfamily><param>Times</param><x-tad-bigger> 2006;27:67-70 © 2006 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 0195-9417/2006/2701-0013$15.00 CONCISE</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param><x-tad-smaller> </x-tad-smaller></fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param><x-tad-bigger>COMMUNICATION </x-tad-bigger><bold><bigger><bigger><bigger>Increased</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Catheter-Related</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Bloodstream</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Infection</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Rates</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>After</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>the</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Introduction</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>of</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>a</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>New</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Mechanical</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Valve</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Intravenous</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Access</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Port</bigger></bigger></bigger></bold><bigger><bigger> <bold>Lisa L. Maragakis, MD;</bold></bigger></bigger><bold><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Karen L. Bradley, RN, BSN;</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Xiaoyan Song, MD, MS;</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Claire Beers, RN, MSN;</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Marlene R. Miller, MD, MSc;</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Sara E. Cosgrove, MD, MS;</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><bigger><bigger>Trish M. Perl, MD, MSc</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></bold></fontfamily> On Jan 11, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Lynn Hadaway wrote: <excerpt>This facility is one of the first ones to identify this problem. So this article is not a new one from our discussion in the spring. This data from many hospitals was presented at several spring conferences including INS. There was also a very recent publication in the journal, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology from reporting the Johns Hopkins experience. Lynn At 9:46 PM -0800 1/10/06, Penelope Scott wrote: <excerpt>Hello all, I'd like to revisit the topic of positive pressure/mechanical valves and bloodstream infections, prompted by this article: <excerpt>Patient Safety Monitoring Finds Law of Unintended Consequences Related to Infections http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/hotnews/61h91354954019.html </excerpt> The link is not clickable, but you can cut and paste the address into your browser to get there. There was a lot of discussion a few months ago about a similar set of concerns. Thanks, Penny </excerpt> -- Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RNC, CRNI Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc. 126 Main Street, PO Box 10 Milner, GA 30257 http://www.hadawayassociates.com office 770-358-7861 </excerpt>
