Comparative risk of bloodstream infection in hospitalized patients receiving intravenous medication by open, point-of-care, or closed delivery systems

Abstract

Use of POC-activated and closed systems for i.v. drug delivery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of hospital-acquired BSI compared with exclusive use of open systems in a large population of hospitalized patients.

Point‐of‐care activated system versus conventional intravenous admixture system at an academic medical centre in Singapore

“…It also gives nurses more direct‐contact time with patients and their families, managing the many nursing activities such as attending to the basic care and psychosocial needs of patients, as well as coordination of care which may occur during administration of IV medications. In addition, the risk of blood stream infection is also shown to be lower with the use of the POC‐activated system …”

“…Manufacturer‐prepared RTU products and POC‐activated products are recommended by the Consensus Development Conference on The Safety of Intravenous Drug Delivery Systems as the preferred IV drug administration system . It was also shown that use of POC‐activated or RTU systems for IV drug delivery were associated with a significantly reduced risk of hospital‐acquired blood stream infection compared with the use of the traditional open system …”

“…4 It was also shown that use of POC-activated or RTU systems for IV drug delivery were associated with a significantly reduced risk of hospital-acquired blood stream infection compared with the use of the traditional open system. 5 The use of RTU preparations is limited by their availability and cost in our local setting. Thus, the POC-activated system was chosen as an alternative to ensure safe IV drug medication in our institution.…”

Air contamination in the sclerosing foam for the treatment of varicose veins

“…14 In fact, some fluids and drugs formulated for intravenous infusion can sustain the growth of microorganisms that may cause serious infectious complications. [15][16][17] Although intrinsic (i.e. from the manufacturer) infusate contamination is rare, high rates of extrinsic contamination 18 (i.e.…”

Comparing the risk of bloodstream infections by type of parenteral nutrition preparation method: A large retrospective, observational study

“…Several studies reported lower risk of BSI [6e9], shorter length of stay (LOS) [6], and lower total hospitalization or treatment costs [8] for MCB vs. COM or other methods requiring manipulation of the PN mixture. Utilizing the Premier research database for discharges occurring in calendar years 2005e2007 inclusive, Turpin et al reported that the BSI infection rate for patients using pharmacy prepared compounded PN was 25.9% compared to 19.6% for patients using MCB [10].…”