The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals

This study assessed if hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous connection system reduces the number of reported percutaneous injuries, overall and those specifically due to intravenous connection activities.^ Incidence rates were compared before and after hospital-wide implementation of a needleless intravenous system at two hospitals, a full service general hospital and a pediatric hospital. The years 1989-1991 were designated as pre-implementation and 1993 was designated as post-implementation. Data from 1992 were not included in the effectiveness evaluation to allow employees to become familiar with use of the new device. The two hospitals showed rate ratios of 1.37 (95% CI = 1.22-1.54, p $\le$.0001) and 1.63 (95% CI = 1.34-1.97, p $\le$.0001), or a 27.1% and a 38.6% reduction in overall injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for intravenous connection injuries were 2.67 (95% CI = 1.89-3.78, p $\le$.0001) and 3.35 (95% CI = 1.87-6.02, p $\le$.0001), or a 62.5% and a 69.9% reduction in injury rate, respectively. Rate ratios for all non-intravenous connection injuries were calculated to control for factors other than device implementation that may have been operating to reduce the injury rate. These rate ratios were lower, 1.21 and 1.44, demonstrating the magnitude of injury reduction due to factors other than device implementation. It was concluded that the device was effective in reduction of numbers of reported percutaneous injuries.^ Use-effectiveness of the system was also assessed by a survey of randomly selected device users to determine satisfaction with the device, frequency of use and barriers to use. Four hundred seventy-eight surveys were returned for a response rate of 50.9%. Approximately 94% of respondents at both hospitals expressed satisfaction with the needleless system and recommended continued use. The survey also revealed that even though over 50% of respondents report using the device "always" or "most of the time" for intravenous medication administration, flushing lines, and connecting secondary intravenous lines, needles were still being used for these same activities. Compatibility, accessibility and other technical problems were reported as reasons for using needles for these activities. These problems must be addressed, by both manufacturers and users, before the needleless system will be effective in prevention of all intravenous connection injuries. ^

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^