Patients may experience additional swelling at the place where the catheter line has been inserted. The swelling is an indicator that there is no healing that is taking place and that there is every reason to worry about the well-being of the patient (Castagna et al., 2016). The authors suggest that nurses should give attention to the recovery process of patients and ensure that such instances are noted and addressed. In cases where there is no close relationship between the health caregivers and the patients, such incidents may be hard to notice, and the patients end up suffering and worse still, be exposed to the ugly infection which may even cost them their lives.
A patient may develop red streaks at the area where the line has been inserted. Another warning sign that the patient may be headed to a CLABSIs. Again, if there is no close interaction between patients and their caregivers such may be hard to notice (Chesshyre et al., 2015). Worse still if the patient is not aware that such are causes for alarm. They may never report the same and end up risking their lives. Adult patients and children are at the greatest risk of these symptoms because in most cases they do not know what should be made known to the health care providers and what should not be a cause for worry.
How does the training of health-care providers on the risks and the preventive measures of CLABSIs impact the overall infection rates?
What is the level of knowledge of nurses regarding the use of evidence-based guidelines to prevent central venous catheter bloodstream infections?
Does an increase in nurse’s knowledge concerning CLABSIs infections reduce the number of infections in the Intensive Care Units?
The authors have utilized different study populations to accomplish their objectives. The two major categories of respondents that are common to all authors are healthcare professionals and adult patients suffering from or who have suffered the CLABSIs infections in the past (Hsu et al., 2014). These two categories have a rich knowledge on the study topic. Such enables researchers to collect adequate data for their research topics and also draw logical conclusions.
There are several processes through which people sample information in studies. For Alfonso et al. (2016) the search of the various database using key terms gave 291 records, however, based on relevance only 4 articles were suitable for the study. In a study by Dougherty, there was convenience sampling of a population of registered nurses in the LTACH setting after completion of orientation to the unit. Out of 52 eligible nurses, 31 participated in the survey response. The study by Lin et al (2015) utilized a cross-sectional design in the qualitative analysis of sources based on the key concepts of the study. Moreover, O’Grady et al. (2011) used data from a variety of available studies. Perin et al. (2016) explored a purposive sampling and selection of 34 studies that formed a set through which to assess results after a systematic review of academic and health database. In the sampling process, Esposito (2017) utilized a cross-sectional design in 16 non-teaching and teaching public and private hospitals with units utilizing CVCs for oncological patients. The target group was 472 nurses in the oncology and outpatient chemotherapy units of the selected hospitals. Likewise, Oliveria et al (2016) samples were collected through a cross-sectional study with questionnaires to 76 professionals in the intensive care. Zu & Wu (2017) utilized the qualitative process and a systematic search of databased on CINAHL, ABI INFORM, and OVID through which they established more than a hundred articles before applying the exclusion-inclusion criteria and utilizing ten articles in the study. Han et al (2010) searched from a variety of available studies for healthcare workers in all units using CVCs in the Calabria region of Italy. Bianco et al. (2013) used samples from a number of CLABSIs which were collected by the hospital-based IP in line with the NHAN approach and definition of CLABIs. The CUSP teams of hospitals receive monthly feedback on infections and quarterly feedback on rates of infection per 1,000 catheter days. Basinger (2016) samples were collected through a cross-sectional study with questionnaires to 76 professionals in the intensive care. In another study by Chidambaram (2015) the samples used were acquired from existent studies. On the other hand, Kadium (2015) utilized a convenience sampling of registered dialysis nurses in the hemodialysis unit was used in a pre and post-test educational interventional design among 60 registered dialysis nurses. CDC and NCBI (2011) worked by using the patients aged 1 year and above in the inpatient, outpatient and ICU settings. The acquisition of the participants was through Fistula First breakthrough initiative. Finally, Srinivasan, et al. (2011) used the ICU, inpatient ward, and hemodialysis facility records for years 2007, 2009 and 2001 to establish the rates of infection.