Editor’s note: This post is by Anne Dabrow Woods, MSN, RN, CRNP, who is AJN‘s publisher and chief nurse and publisher of Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Research. It was originally published on the blog of Lippincott’s Evidence-Based Practice Network.
I read with interest the article “Central Venous Pressure Monitoring: Where’s the Evidence?” (purchase required for nonsubscribers) in the January issue of AJN. It’s part of a series called Critical Analysis, Critical Care, which will appraise the evidence regarding common critical care practices. So much of what we do in nursing is not based on evidence but on how we have always done things in practice—or on research that was not credible.
This article looks at the evidence supporting the use of central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring alone to guide treatment decisions for patients. According to the article, a 2008 systematic review by Marik and colleagues concluded that CVP is not an accurate indicator of intravascular volume, nor is it an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness (whether a patient will respond to a fluid bolus with an increase in stroke volume). The authors of the AJN article critically appraised the evidence and determined the following:
The relationship between intravascular volume and CVP is a weak relationship and clinicians should not use CVP to estimate a patient’s intravascular volume.
The absolute CVP value or a change in CVP should not be used to predict a change in the stroke volume or cardiac index.
There is not an absolute CVP value that can be used to determine what the next step of treatment should be, be it a fluid bolus or the use of a vasoactive medication.
In brief, the evidence tells us that we can’t base treatment decisions on just one hemodynamic indice. The clinician needs to look at the entire hemodynamic picture, including, for example, heart rate, blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and urine output, when determining the best treatment option for the patient.
References
Kupchik, N. & Bridges, E., 2012. Central venous pressure monitoring: what’s the evidence? American Journal of Nursing. 112 (1).
Marik, P. et al. 2008. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest. 134(1).
Medicare is confusing for providers who aren’t yet familiar with it. Here’s a Nursetopia post that draws attention to its complexity and notes the useful video above (it’s one of a series of videos on different aspects of Medicare). Those of you who know all about it already: Drop by her thoughtful (and consistently updated!) blog and let her know your own tips on handling the ins and outs of Medicare and Medicaid.
Plus a brief note on reader comments: we’ve been getting a lot of great comments lately on this blog, and we’re grateful for that. So thank you. A fair number of the comments were on posts from previous months, such as this post comparing U.S. and Australian health care systems. Is somebody by chance teaching a nursing course that requires students to leave thoughtful, respectful, engaged comments in the blogosphere? If so, bless you!—JM, senior editor/blog editor
By Karen Roush, MS, RN, FNP-C, AJN clinical managing editor
“Physician extender.” It’s way past time to kill that term.
A study published in the October issue of Surgery found that adding an NP to the surgical team decreased the number of unnecessary ED visits by 50% and increased the use of visiting nurse, physical therapy, and occupational therapy services. A Medscape article (registration required) on the study explained the importance of the findings in this way: “According to the researchers, physician ‘extenders,’ such as NPs, help maintain continuity of care while resident work hours are kept at a maximum of 80 per week. . . .”
Sure enough, the stated purpose of the study was to determine if “integrating this physician extender into the surgery team” would improve outcomes and resource allocation. Ouch.
Experts in our own right. Nurse practitioners are not physician extenders. We are highly skilled and educated nurses who provide evidence-based care grounded in the nursing model. We are not “extensions” of anyone. We are colleagues and collaborators, independent clinicians and experts in our own right. Our purpose is to provide comprehensive care, promote health, educate, and advocate. It is not to relieve interns, supplement physician education, or be the low-cost alternative when physicians have to “do more with less,” as Medscape quoted one of the study authors. Yes, we should be integrated into health care teams, surgical and otherwise—because nurses provide a distinctive aspect of care that research has repeatedly shown to be essential to good patient outcomes. Read the rest of this entry ?
A few years ago, in a letter to the editor of another journal, an NP described how one of her patients, a man on home hospice care, had suffered 33 shocks as he lay dying in his wife’s arms. The source of those shocks, his implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), reportedly “got so hot that it burned through his skin.” The device that had been implanted to save his life caused this man and his wife great distress in his final hours. Device deactivation at the end of life is an option; but in this case, apparently, it had never been discussed.
ICDs, standard treatment for people at risk for life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, work to restore normal rhythm by delivering a high-energy, painful electrical shock. The devices are so effective that people with ICDs often die from causes other than heart disease. But once a person with an ICD begins actively dying, as in the case above, the device may cause needless pain and prolonged suffering. So it’s essential for providers and patients to talk about the possibility of deactivation, well in advance of such crises.
Russo, the coordinator of the pacemaker clinic at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New York City, wanted to better understand why providers and patients weren’t discussing this possibility and to find ways to promote more timely discussions. Read the rest of this entry ?
Wednesday was CANS and its focus on comparative effectiveness research. After an opening keynote by Carolyn Clancy, director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), who discussed the need to accelerate progress in improving U.S. health outcomes, a panel of nurses discussed different methodological considerations, from databases to competencies.
In early August, on our Facebook page, we asked if there were “old nursing habits” that should be killed off. We received a lot of feedback, which we described in a blog post called “Killing Traditional Nursing Duties #1.” We did another post on the answers to our second question, “When you give IM injections, what site do you most often use—dorsogluteal (upper outer quadrant of buttocks), ventrogluteal (lateral hip), or deltoid (upper arm)?” This also got many comments in response.
Our last question was this: “Does your institution routinely follow ‘NPO after midnight’ for preoperative patients?” Here’s some of the comments we received on the blog:
My institution does follow the NPO after midnight for preop patients. I sometimes disagree d/t the time patients may be going to surgery. If a patient is not scheduled for the OR until the following day at 5 pm, why should they have to be NPO after midnight the night before?
…most of the younger anesthesiologists/CRNA’s allowed BLACK COFFEE to be drunk right up until time of surgery. No dairy or sugar in it, obviously.
The facility that I work for does routinely follow ‘nothing by mouth’ after midnight guidelines. If the patient is scheduled for a late surgery I may call the doctor and request that the orders be altered and in most cases the doctor’s are agreeable and will change the orders, writing NPO after midnight with the exception of clear liquids.
Responses on Facebook, however, showed a stricter adherence to the traditional no eating or drinking after midnight before surgery; it was fairly unanimous that institutions still follow this ancient practice (though one person did ask, “What’s npo?”!).
Well, it’s clear that this month’s CE article by Jeannette Crenshaw is sorely needed. “Preoperative Fasting: Will the Evidence Ever Be Put into Practice?” addresses the fact that despite 25 years of evidence and standards showing that NPO after midnight is not good practice, it is still used in most hospitals and preoperative practices. The evidence support clear liquids up to a few hours before surgery, and many groups have endorsed carbohydrate-rich beverages along with clear liquids up to a few hours before surgery.
So read Crenshaw’s article and disseminate it to your colleagues and clinical practice committees—practice changes should be based on evidence, and for this, the evidence is clear.
Editor’s note: In early August, on our Facebook page, we asked if there were “old nursing habits” that should be killed off. We received a lot of feedback, which we described in a blog post, “Killing Traditional Nursing Duties #1.” We’re back now with feedback from our second question: “When you give IM injections, what site do you most often use—dorsogluteal (upper outer quadrant of
buttocks), ventrogluteal (lateral hip), or deltoid (upper arm)? Why?”
Hands down, the deltoid injection site was preferred for intramuscular (IM) injections, especially for immunizations and if the patient was an adult. (“People don’t have to drop their drawers” was my favorite reason cited.) A few of those who favored that site noted that, if they didn’t use the deltoid (because of the volume of the injection), they would then go to the ventrogluteal site. One person preferred the vastas lateralis (the outer middle third of the thigh), which wasn’t listed as a choice, but is certainly a site that’s used, especially in infants. And several respondents said they prefer the dorsogluteal site. Reasons given were “more comfort” and “more muscle.”
This is actually contrary to current evidence and teaching, which is that the preferred site is the ventrogluteal site. As noted in an article we did in February 2010, evidence indicates we should avoid the dorsogluteal site because “it poses unnecessary and unacceptable risks of injury to the superior gluteal artery and sciatic nerve.” Also, the traditional dorsogluteal site, especially in obese
individuals, may have excess subcutaneous fat that can reduce the chances of having the medication injected into the muscle.
And it’s not just a few nurses who continue using the traditional dorsogluteal site—a recent Canadian study (see our report on the results) showed that only 14% of hospital nurses use the recommended ventrogluteal site. So, for those of you who still prefer the dorsogluteal site, think again.
Our new question is this: “Does your institution routinely follow ‘NPO after midnight’ for preoperative patients?” Give your feedback here or on our Facebook page.—Shawn Kennedy, editor-in-chief
nearly two-thirds of Internet offenders said they’d initiated the topic of sex in their first chat session; more than half . . . disguised their identity when online; most . . . preferred communicating with teenage girls rather than teenage boys; high school students’ experience with “sexting” . . . differed significantly according to their sex; a small number of students are being threatened and assaulted by people they meet online; avatar sites such as Second Life were used both by students and offenders . . . .
What’s your own experience? Have a look at the article, and pass along the link if you find it useful, as a parent or nurse. Have you heard any concerns about Internet safety from parents or adolescents you encounter in your own practice or community? What’s your own take on Facebook and privacy, or any other issue raised in this article?—JM, senior editor
By Inge B. Corless, PhD, RN, FAAN, professor at the MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, and Brian Goodroad, DNP, RN, AACRN, nurse practitioner and associate professor at Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota
by centralasian/via Flickr
Crossing the Quality Chasm, an Institute of Medicine report from 2001, bemoans the chasm between our current research knowledge and the current state of care. Back in 2003, Don Berwick, now the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, provided the following pithy codification of the problem in a JAMA article called “Disseminating Innovations in Health Care” (subscription required; click here for the abstract): “Failing to use available science is costly and harmful; it leads to overuse of unhelpful care, underuse of effective care, and errors in execution.” Berwick pondered the slow pace of innovation adoption and attributed it to three factors:
the characteristics of the innovation
the characteristics of the potential adopters
contextual factors
Berwick also made this observation about innovations that do get adopted: “Health care is rich in evidence-based innovations, yet even when such innovations are implemented successfully in one location, they often disseminate slowly—if at all.”
Given these obstacles, what can be done to facilitate the integration of research findings into practice? What can be done to change this situation, and what would this entail?
One step is to share our knowledge and our successes in making changes, along with the obstacles to doing so. We invite nurses to identify research that has changed or somehow influenced their practice and to share their experiences with us for potential publication on this blog. We’re not asking for formal academic work here; what’s we’d like is simple, brief (one to five paragraphs) summary description in your own voice. Briefly describe the study and its findings, as you understand them—and then describe how the findings were integrated into practice and any outcomes (whether they were formally measured or anecdotally reported). Read the rest of this entry ?
By Sylvia Foley, AJN senior editor In 2008, more than 62,000 people who had undergone procedures at one of two southern Nevada endoscopy clinics were notified that “they might have been exposed to bloodborne pathogens, including hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and HIV, as a result of unsafe injection practices.” As author Lisa Black reports in this month’s CE–Original Research feature, a subsequent investigation by federal and state agencies found multiple breaches of infection control protocols. Indeed, 115 patients were found to be “either certainly or presumptively infected” with HCV through the reuse of contaminated medication vials.
Especially distressing was strong anecdotal evidence that because of a general fear of workplace retaliation, staff at the two clinics had often failed to report unsafe patient care conditions. At the request of the Nevada legislature, a study was conducted to examine Nevada RNs’ experiences with workplace attitudes toward patient advocacy activities. Black was the principal investigator. Read the rest of this entry ?
We welcome comments, discussion, curiosity, debate, but we also value civility. Let us know about your lives and thoughts as nurses and as citizens. We reserve the right to moderate comments that are intended to sell something or that are hostile, rude, or otherwise inappropriate.
Content Disclaimer
Views expressed on the blog are solely those of the authors or persons quoted. They do not necessarily reflect AJN’s views or those of Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
I read with interest the article “Central Venous Pressure Monitoring: Where’s the Evidence?” (purchase required for nonsubscribers) in the January issue of AJN. It’s part of a series called Critical Analysis, Critical Care, which will appraise the evidence regarding common critical care practices. So much of what we do in nursing is not based on evidence but on how we have always done things in practice—or on research that was not credible.
