An Intervention Study to Evaluate Nursing Management of Peripheral Intravascular Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief This study examined the impact that implementation of guidelines for the management of peripheral intravascular devices had on nurses’ knowledge and practice as well as patient outcome. A pre- and posttest nonequivalent experimental study was conducted in a Hong Kong tertiary care teaching hospital. The results showed that the percentage of correct answers for all questions was significantly higher at the posttest. The overall results also showed significant practice improvement in terms of the flushing agent used, documentation, and site dressing. There also was a decrease in the incidence of extravasation and phlebitis. It was concluded that evidence-based practice is important for improving patient outcomes. Compliance with the guidelines served as an important measure for the prevention of intravascular device-related complications. This study examined the impact that implementation of guidelines for the management of peripheral intravascular devices had on nurses’ knowledge and practice as well as patient outcome. A pre- and posttest nonequivalent experimental study was conducted in a Hong Kong tertiary care teaching hospital. The results showed that the percentage of correct answers for all questions was significantly higher at the posttest. The overall results also showed significant practice improvement in terms of the flushing agent used, documentation, and site dressing. There also was a decrease in the incidence of extravasation and phlebitis. It was concluded that evidence-based practice is important for improving patient outcomes. Compliance with the guidelines served as an important measure for the prevention of intravascular device-related complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".