IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v19y2010i4p416-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Bacterial CFUs in Five Intravenous Connectors

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia Chernecky

    (Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, cchernecky@mail.mcg.edu)

  • Jennifer Waller

    (Medical College of Georgia, Augusta)

Abstract

This study determines if there are differences in colony forming units (CFU) of bacteria between five different needleless intravenous connectors. CFUs create environments for bloodstream infections with 1 CFU to begin an infection and 15 to develop infection. Intraluminal pathway protection is a most significant way to eliminate 50% bloodstream infections. Five different connectors were evaluated by independent laboratory in vitro regarding ≥15 CFUs, 4 organisms over 4 days. Q-Syte™ had significantly higher mean number days CFUs ≥15 than all other devices, Rymed-5001 ® having the least ( p

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia Chernecky & Jennifer Waller, 2010. "Comparison of Bacterial CFUs in Five Intravenous Connectors," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 19(4), pages 416-428, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:416-428
    DOI: 10.1177/1054773810375110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773810375110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1054773810375110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:416-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.