Effects of the care given to intensive care patients using an evidence model on the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections.

Abstract

It is important to put evidence-based guidelines into practice in the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care patients. In contrast to expensive and complex interventions, a care bundle that includes easy-to-implement and low-cost interventions improves clinical outcomes. The compliance of intensive care nurses with guidelines is of great importance in achieving these results. The Translating Evidence into Practice Model provides guidance in how to implement the necessary guidelines. This quasi-experimental study used a post-test control group design in nonequivalent groups and was conducted in the anesthesia intensive care unit of a tertiary-level training and research hospital. All patients who were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, who had a central line during the study, and who met the inclusion criteria were included in the sample. The care bundle comprised education, and protocols for hand hygiene and the aseptic technique, maximum sterile barrier precautions, central line insertion trolley, and management of nursing care. To analyze the data, the independent samples t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, dependent samples t-test, rate ratio, and relative risk were used with 95% confidence intervals. The rate of central line-associated bloodstream infections was significantly lower in the intervention group (2.85/1000 central line days) than in the control group (3.35/1000 central line days) (P = 0.042). The number of accesses to the central line by the nurses decreased significantly in the intervention group compared to the control group (P < 0.001). The mean score for the nurses' evidence-based guideline post-education knowledge (70.80 ± 12.26) was significantly higher than that pre-education (48.20 ± 14.66) (P < 0.001). Compliance with the guideline recommendations in central line-related nursing interventions and in the central line insertion process was significantly better in the intervention group than in the control group in many interventions (P < 0.05). The mean score for the nurses' attitude towards evidence-based nursing increased significantly over time (59.87 ± 7.23 at the 0th month; 63.79 ± 7.24 at the 6th month) (P < 0.001). Nursing care given by implementing the central line care bundle with the Translating Evidence into Practice Model affected the measures. Thanks to the implementation of the care bundle, the rate of infections and the number of accesses to the central line decreased, while the critical care nurses' knowledge of evidence-based guidelines, compliance with the guideline recommendations in central line-related nursing interventions, and attitudes towards evidence-based nursing improved.