A point prevalence study of cancer nursing practices for managing intravascular devices in an Australian tertiary cancer center

Purpose The use of intravascular devices is associated with a number of potential complications. Despite a number of evidence-based clinical guidelines in this area, there continues to be nursing practice discrepancies. This study aims to examine nursing practice in a cancer care setting to identify nursing practice and areas for improvement respective to best available evidence. Methods A point prevalence survey was undertaken in a tertiary cancer care centre in Queensland, Australia. On a randomly selected day, four nurses assessed intravascular device related nursing practices and collected data using a standardized survey tool. Results 58 inpatients (100%) were assessed. Forty-eight (83%) had a device in situ, comprising 14 Peripheral Intravenous Catheters (29.2%), 14 Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (29.2%), 14 Hickman catheters (29.2%) and six Port-a-Caths (12.4%). Suboptimal outcomes such as incidences of local site complications, incorrect/inadequate documentation, lack of flushing orders, and unclean/non intact dressings were observed. Conclusions This study has highlighted a number of intravascular device related nursing practice discrepancies compared with current hospital policy. Education and other implementation strategies can be applied to improve nursing practice. Following education strategies, it will be valuable to repeat this survey on a regular basis to provide feedback to nursing staff and implement strategies to improve practice. More research is required to provide evidence to clinical practice with regards to intravascular device related consumables, flushing technique and protocols.

Skin cancer detection by one click - are we any closer?

To the editor...

Cardiac safety concerns for ondansetron, an antiemetic commonly used for nausea linked to cancer treatment and following anaesthesia

Introduction: Ondansetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist commonly used as an anti-emetic to prevent the nausea and vomiting associated with anti-cancer drugs, cancer radiotherapy, or postoperatively. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning for ondansetron due to a potential for prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiogram (ECG), a phenomenon that is associated with an increased risk of the potentially fatal arrhythmia torsade de pointes. Areas covered: We undertook a review of the cardiac safety of ondansetron. Our primary sources of information were PubMed (with downloading of full articles), and the internet. Expert opinion: The dose of ondansetron that the FDA has concerns about is 32 mg iv (or several doses that are equivalent to this), which is only used in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. This suggests that ondansetron may be safe in the lower doses used to prevent the nausea and vomiting in radiation treatment or postoperatively. However, as there is a report that a lower dose of ondansetron prolonged the QT interval in healthy volunteers, this needs to be clarified by the FDA. More research needs to be undertaken of the relationship between QT prolongation and torsades in order that the FDA can produce clear-cut evidence of pro-arrhythmic risk when introducing warnings for this.

Postoperative chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Postoperative chemotherapy is currently not recommended for resected non-small cell lung cancer in many countries and centers. Recently, results of several large randomized clinical trials were reported with conflicting evidence. Accordingly, we sought to determine whether postoperative chemotherapy is associated with improved survival compared with that after surgical intervention alone. Methods Randomized clinical trials with cisplatin- or uracil plus ftorafur-containing regimens were included and evaluated separately. A systematic review that included randomized clinical trials performed before 1995 was identified and found to be of adequate quality. Further randomized controlled trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from 1995 through 2004. In addition, the reference lists of articles and conference abstracts were searched. The logarithm of the hazard ratio and its standard error were calculated, and a fixed-effect model was used to combine the estimates. Results There were 7200 patients enrolled in 19 trials included in the analyses. An overall estimate of 13% relative reduction in mortality (95% confidence interval, 7%-19%) was found. There was 11% relative reduction in mortality associated with postoperative cisplatin (95% confidence interval, 4%-18%; P = .004) and 17% associated with uracil plus ftorafur (95% confidence interval, 5%-27%; P = .006) compared with that after surgical intervention alone. This means that there would be an additional survivor at 5 years for 25 patients treated with cisplatin or for 30 patients treated with uracil plus ftorafur. Conclusions Postoperative chemotherapy is associated with improved survival compared with that after surgical intervention alone. Selected patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer should be offered chemotherapy. Copyright © 2004 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.