Here is the Quesstion: The Infection Preventionists are our institution are requiring ports with limited use, or with infusions not requiring central placement be de-accessed and a peripheral IV site be established instead of administration through the port. The IPs are stating this is due to meeting CLABSI initiatives related to "line" necessity. They are interpreting the recommendations as the port needle being the line. If the line doesn't have to be a central line, then the port should be de-accessed and a peripheral site established. Does anyone know of any information to either support or counter this practice? Christine Duchene RN, BSN
In my opinion this is a bad approach even one that could add to the risk of CLABSI. PIV insertion can also lead to BSI. No evidence to support this practice and I would fight this practice. There is absolutely no valid reason to remove a functioning port access needle to insert a PIV. Lynn
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RN, BC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
Website http://www.hadawayassociates.com
Office Phone 770-358-7861
Thanks Lynn. I have been fighting. I plan to share your response with my Director. Chris Duchene RN, BSN
We fight for patients to get ports based on their poor peripheral access and repeated admissions for chronic conditions. We would never NOT use that port if they need vascular access.
I don't see how the data out there supports this. PIVs can, and often do, become the source of BSIs.
ReneMaslow, RN, VA-BC PICC/Proc RN Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa, CA
Ask them for their data and proof that this practice is the basis for your CLABSI's. They probably don't have any. If you don't have a problem with port CLABSI, don't 'fix' the problem you don't have.
Janine Pritchett, RN, BSN,
Nurse Manager
Option Care Home Infusion - Seattle Branch