| Summary: | 碩士 === 弘光科技大學 === 護理研究所 === 94 === To prevent catheter exit site infection is the key issue for the hemodialysis patients who inserted temporary double lumen catheter. There is no guideline for choosing the dressing for the exit site of temporary double lumen catheter in hemodialysis center in Taiwan so far. This study evaluates the effects of three different dressings on preventing catheter exit site infection among hemodialysis patients who inserted temporary double lumen catheter. The findings may be adopted by the Taiwan Nephrology Nurses Associations and hemodialysis centers in Taiwan as a guideline for choosing the right dressings to prevent catheter-related infection.
This study uses observation-follow up design to repeatedly measure the patients who inserted temporary double lumen catheter in three hemodialysis units, and collects data from checking lists and patients’ medical records. The responsible nurse observes whether the exit side of patients is infected or not and records on the checking lists.
This study was conducted within two medical centers and a regional hospital in central Taiwan. There were 179 people whom had been observed. All patients’ information was keyed in Excel file, then used SPSS 11.0 and SAS 9.01 to do statistical analyses. The statistical analyses include percentage, average, standard deviation, chi-square tests, and Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE).
According the findings of Generalized Estimation Equation, in the third observation, using 3M tape vs. Mifix dressing is significantly associated with infection (p < 0.03 ); in the fourth observation, using 3M tape vs. Mifix dressing is significantly associated with infection (p < 0.03 ); in the fifth observation using 3M tape vs. Mifix dressing is also significantly associated with infection (p < 0.01 ), the infection rate of using 3M tape is higher than the infection rate of using Mifix in the third, fourth and fifth observations. But in the sixth observation using 3M tape vs. Mifix dressing is not significantly associated with infection (p < 0.71). Nonetheless the comparison of Tegaderm by Mifix shows no significance.
This study suggests to use Tegaderm or Mifix dressing for hemodialysis patients inserted temporary double lumen catheter. However, if taking the cost of dressing into account, Mifix dressing is the better choice.
|
|---|
