ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Randomized studies are limited on whether the use of procoagulant pads improve outcomes after arterial sheath removal in interventional cardiology patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a procoagulant pad in combination with manual compression would decrease time to hemostasis compared with our institution's manual compression alone procedure after arterial sheath removal associated with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A convenience sample of PCI patients were randomly assigned to 3 methods for achieving hemostasis at the femoral artery site after sheath removal (manual compression alone, SyvekPatch NT plus manual compression, and D-Stat Dry plus manual compression). Outcome variables included time to hemostasis, number of pressure applications, and development of complications. Analysis of variance and χ analysis were used to test differences among the 3 groups, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 80 PCI patients were studied (n = 26 manual compression only; n = 26 SyvekPatch NT; n = 28 D-Stat Dry). Significant differences were found among the 3 methods for time to hemostasis (F2,77 = 4.12, P = .020), with the manual compression alone method significantly longer than either of the 2 procoagulant pad groups. Complications were rare and were not significantly different with the 3 methods.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/instrumentation , Bandages , Coagulants/administration & dosage , Device Removal , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Hemostatic Techniques , Aged , Analysis of Variance , Female , Femoral Artery , Hematoma/etiology , Hemostasis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sampling StudiesABSTRACT
The number of inpatients with limited English proficiency is not well known in our community hospital. We wanted to identify the languages patients and nurses are comfortable using when communicating about health care needs. For this study, we surveyed a convenience sample of patients registering for hospital admission during a one-week period and nursing staff employed in the inpatient setting. The results of the surveys will help our organization better plan for the types and frequency of interpretive services required by our patients. In addition to the information gained from the research, the process allowed us to broaden the nursing research program to include multidisciplinary teams and research questions.
Subject(s)
Communication , Cultural Diversity , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Language , Nurse-Patient Relations , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Attitude to Health , Female , Hospitals, Community , Humans , Inpatients/psychology , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Care/methods , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Patient Satisfaction , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Blood for point-of-care analysis of glucose levels is often obtained from different sources (fingerstick, arterial or central venous catheter). OBJECTIVES: To examine agreement between point-of-care and laboratory glucose values and to determine effects of hematocrit, serum carbon dioxide, and mean arterial pressure on the accuracy of point-of-care values. METHODS: Point-of-care values were compared with laboratory values. In 49 critically ill patients, blood was obtained first from a catheter for laboratory testing and then from the catheter and via fingerstick for point-of-care testing. Bias, precision, and root-mean-square differences were calculated to quantify differences in values between the 2 methods. A t test was used to determine differences in values between each point-of-care blood source and the laboratory value. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine if serum level of carbon dioxide, hematocrit, and/or mean arterial pressure significantly contributed to the difference in bias and precision for the point-of-care blood sources. RESULTS: Mean laboratory glucose level was 135 (SEM 5.3, range 58-265) mg/dL. In point-of-care testing, bias +/- precision and root-mean-square differences were 2.1 +/- 12.3 and 12.35, respectively, for fingerstick blood and 0.6 +/- 10.6 and 10.46 for catheter blood. Values for point-of-care and laboratory tests did not differ significantly. For catheter samples, hematocrit and serum carbon dioxide contributed significantly to difference scores between point-of-care and laboratory values (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Glucose values for point-of-care samples did not differ significantly from laboratory values. For catheter samples, hematocrit and serum carbon dioxide levels accounted for the difference between point-of-care and laboratory glucose values.
