Tlatempa LL, Huertas JM, Ostrosky ZL, Rangel FMS, Ponce de León RS, Ibarra BJ, Romero OC, Báez MR

Language: Spanish
References: 7
Page: 59-63
PDF size: 32.56 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: With the purpose of reducing costs and improving human resources utilization, pre-packed kits have been used for different purposes. However, their use, specially in developing countries, has not been common due to the sense that their cost is higher than hospitalmade kits. Objective: To determine the cost and advantages of a kit for antisepsis of the skin in the placement and maintenance of peripheral short vascular catheters, compared to the standard hospital-made kit. Methods: During March 1998, we performed an open trial where we sequentially used a pre-packed kit (IV-Start Pack, Becton Dickinson) in 100 patients with peripheral catheters for more than 24 h, and a hospital-made pack in the next 100. We evaluated material and labor costs, nursing time and waste production. Results: Economic savings for IV Start Pack were 8.19 Mexican pesos per maintenance procedure and 8.11 pesos per instalation. Regarding nursing time, IV Start pack had an average time of 9.05 ± 3.48 (4-20) min vs 12.83 ± 4.54 (4-30) min for the traditional group, when comparing maintenace procedures (p = 0.000001). For instalation procedures IV Start Pack had an average time of 7.14 ± 2.98 (4-15) min vs 10.36 ± 6.13 (3-38) min for the traditional group (p = 0.001). Waste production per maintenance procedure was 17.28 g for IV Start Pack and 38.1 g for traditional equipment. For instalation procedures this amount decreased to 16.79 g for IV Start Pack and increased to 43.63 g for the traditional set. Conclusion: Pre-packed kits are useful in reducing material and labor costs, nursing time and waste production. Introduction of such new equipments to the hospital should be preceeded by careful local evaluation.

REFERENCES

1. Tomford JW, Hershey CO, McLaren CE, et al. Intravenous therapy team and peripheral venous catheter-associated complications: A prospective controlled study. Arch Intern Med 1984;144:1191-4.

2. Bentley DW, Lepper MH. Septicemia realted to indwelling venous catheter. JAMA 1968;206:1749-52.

3. Faubion WC, Wesley JR, Khalidi N, et al. Total parenteral nutrition catheter sepsis: Impact of the team approach. J Parent Enteral Nutr 1986;10:642-5.

4. Tomford JW, Hershey CO. The IV therapy team: Impact on patient care and costs of hospitalization. NITA 1985;8:387-9.

5. Ponce de León RS, Rangel Frausto MS, López EJI. Disminución del riesgo de infecciones nosocomiales: tendencias seculares de un programa de control en México. Enf Infec y Microbiol 1997;17:98.

6. Volkow FP, Rangel FMS, Ponce de León RS, et al. Basura hospitalaria: comentarios sobre sus riesgos y regulación. Enf Infec y Microbiol 1999;19:1-4.

7. Soifer NE, Edlin BR, Weinstein RA, et al. A randomized IV team trial. Program & abstracts of the 29th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1989:284.