Olmedo-Buenrostro BA, Velasco-Rodríguez R, Godínez-Gómez R, Delgado-Amézcua C, Escamilla-Córdova MS, Cristerna-Silva AA, Ávalos-Molina ME, López-Morales MA

Language: Spanish
References: 60
Page: 93-97
PDF size: 97.39 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The nursing needs to leave behind all those actions not established by the governing organisms of the same and that everyday perform without thinking and any theoretical- scientific support, increasing with it the possibility of complications to the patient. Objetive: To identify the actions performed by the nursing personal of the Regional University Hospital to restore the permeability of venoclisis. Methodology: Descriptive transverse study with sampling not probabilistic for convenience with 34 nurses. There was effected an study of shade blinded where the refered actions were compared with the performed during the actions to permeate the venoclisis. Analysis by descriptive statistics was used. Results: 11.8% refered to use a bolus of physiological infusion and was observed that 41% realized it; 11.8% refered to twist the equipment tube and 20.6% realized it; 11.8% refered to observe if the equipment was doubled and only 3% carried out it; 11.8% refered to check the appropriate height of the saline solution and 3% realized it; 7% affirmed to apply heparin and nobody carried out it. Conclusions: In presence of blocked venoclisis, it is appropriate to perform procedures of observation before those of action or manipulation. The practice of nursing must be based on the observance of ethical criteria that protect the integrity of the patient.

REFERENCES

1. Perry A, Potter P. Fundamentos de

2. Enfermería. Madrid, España: Harcourt;

3. 2002.

4. Rosales S, Reyes E. Fundamentos de

5. enfermería. Manual Moderno; México

6. 1999.

7. En el camino del éxito de las vías intravenosas.

8. Nursing 2000.Vol. XVIII, No. 8.

9. Dossier B. Enfermería Fundamental:

10. conceptos, procesos y práctica.Mc

11. Graw-Hill; México 1999.

12. Niesen KM, Harris DY, Parkin LS, Henn

13. LT. The effects of heparin versus normal

14. saline for maintenance peripheral

15. intravenous locks in pregnant women.

16. J. Obstet. Ginecol. Neonatal Nursing,

17. 2003; 32(4): 503-508.

18. LeDuc K. Efficacy of normal saline

19. solution versus heparin solution for

20. maintaining patency of peripheral

21. intravenous catheters in children. J.

22. Emerg. Nursing 1987; 23(4): 306-

24. Kleiber C, Hanrahan K, Fagan Cl,

25. Zittergruen MA. Heparin vs saline for

26. peripheral i.v. locks in children. Pediatric

27. Nursing 1993; 19(4): 405-409.

28. Hamilton RA, Plis JM, Clay C, Sylvan

29. L. Heparin sodium versus 0.9%

30. sodium chloride injection for

31. maintaining patency of indwelling

32. intermittent infusion devices. Clin.

33. Pharm. 1998; 7(6): 439-443.

34. Epperson EL. Efficacy of 0.9% sodium

35. chloride injection with and

36. without heparin for maintaining

37. indwelling intermittent injection site.

38. Clin. Pharm. 1984; 3(6): 626-629.

39. Ashton J, Gibson V, Summers S.

40. (1990). Effects of heparin versus

41. saline solution on intermittent

42. infusion device irrigation. Heart

43. Lung 1990; 19(6): 608-612.

44. Mudge B, Forcier D, Slattery MJ.

45. Patency of 24-gauge peripheral intermittent

46. infusion devices: a comparison

47. of heparin and saline flush

48. solutions. Pediatr. Nursing 1998; 24(2):

49. 142-145.

50. Perry A, Potter P. Fundamentos de Enfermería. Madrid, España: Harcourt; 2002.

51. Rosales S, Reyes E. Fundamentos de enfermería. Manual Moderno; México 1999.

52. En el camino del éxito de las vías intravenosas. Nursing 2000.Vol. XVIII, No. 8.

53. Dossier B. Enfermería Fundamental: conceptos, procesos y práctica.Mc Graw-Hill; México 1999.

54. Niesen KM, Harris DY, Parkin LS, Henn LT. The effects of heparin versus normal saline for maintenance peripheral intravenous locks in pregnant women. J. Obstet. Ginecol. Neonatal Nursing, 2003; 32(4): 503-508.

55. LeDuc K. Efficacy of normal saline solution versus heparin solution for maintaining patency of peripheral intravenous catheters in children. J. Emerg. Nursing 1987; 23(4): 306- 309.

56. Kleiber C, Hanrahan K, Fagan Cl, Zittergruen MA. Heparin vs saline for peripheral i.v. locks in children. Pediatric Nursing 1993; 19(4): 405-409.

57. Hamilton RA, Plis JM, Clay C, Sylvan L. Heparin sodium versus 0.9% sodium chloride injection for maintaining patency of indwelling intermittent infusion devices. Clin. Pharm. 1998; 7(6): 439-443.

58. Epperson EL. Efficacy of 0.9% sodium chloride injection with and without heparin for maintaining indwelling intermittent injection site. Clin. Pharm. 1984; 3(6): 626-629.

59. Ashton J, Gibson V, Summers S. (1990). Effects of heparin versus saline solution on intermittent infusion device irrigation. Heart Lung 1990; 19(6): 608-612.

60. Mudge B, Forcier D, Slattery MJ. Patency of 24-gauge peripheral intermittent infusion devices: a comparison of heparin and saline flush solutions. Pediatr. Nursing 1998; 24(2): 142-145.