↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a training program in compliance with recommendations for venous lines care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of a training program in compliance with recommendations for venous lines care
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1046-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. J. Pérez-Granda, M. Guembe, C. Rincón, P. Muñoz, E. Bouza

Abstract

The impact of training programs on the care and maintenance of venous lines (VL) has been assessed mainly in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on the impact of such programs in a whole general hospital are scarce. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with VL care after an extensive training program aimed at nurses caring for adult ICU and non-ICU patients. We performed 2 point prevalence studies in a general hospital. A specialized nurse visited all hospitalized adult patients, performed a bedside inspection, and reviewed the nursing records for patients with a VL before and after a 1-year training program. The program included an interactive on-line teaching component and distribution of pocket leaflets and posters with recommendations on VL care. Data recorded for the first and second prevalence studies were as follows: number of patients visited, 753 vs. 682; total number of patients with ≥ 1 VL implanted on the visit day, 653 (86.7 %) vs 585 (85.8 %); catheters considered unnecessary on the study day, 183 (22.9 %) vs 48 (7.1 %) (p < 0.001); number of catheters with local clinical evidence of infection on the study day, 18 (2.2 %) vs 12 (1.8 %) (p = 0.52); registration of insertion day (42.3 % vs 50.1 %; p = 0.003); and registration of day of dressing change (41.2 % vs 49.1 %; p = 0.003). Maintenance parameters improved more in non-ICU than in ICU patients. A multidisciplinary teaching program to improve VL care and compliance with recommendations is effective. Point prevalence studies are easy to carry out and effective at demonstrating increases in compliance, mainly in non-ICU patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unknown 10 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#10,667,607
of 16,663,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,301
of 6,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,315
of 236,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,663,134 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them