Surgical Infection Paper

Surgical Infection Issue with Central Venous Catheters in Oncology The reason for this paper is to analyze and provide applications for clinical practice guidelines (CPG) retrieved from the National Guideline Clearinghouse as it relates to surgical infections with central venous catheters in oncology patients. The title of the guideline is as follows: Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.
Scope and Purpose of the CPG The scope and purpose of the CPG is to recommend standard clinical practices that are evidence-based guidelines on how to care for central venous catheter (CVC) patients with cancer. This guideline addresses the health questions related
1.2) Insertion site or placement of CVC should be done based on the individual’s risks and benefits; however, avoid the femoral artery because of high risk for infection and thrombosis. 1.3) Placement is recommended to be done under guided imaging unless staff is well trained to place otherwise. 2.1) Caring for a CVC includes care clinical bundle (assess the need for a CVC, maximum site preparation, proper hand hygiene, and chlorhexidine to clean the skin during catheter insertion) are recommended for placement and prevention against infections. 2.2) Using coated CVCs with antimicrobial or heparin impregnated catheters are recommended to decrease the risks of catheter related infections. 2.3) Prophylactic use of systemic antibiotics (IV or oral) is not recommended before insertion of CVC. 2.4) Recommendations are not for or against using heparin/saline flushes prophylactically to prevent blood stream infections (BSI). 3.1) Blood cultures should be obtained from the catheter and soft tissue entrance-exit before starting antibiotics. 4.1) Use of systemic anticoagulation has not been shown to decrease catheter-associated thrombosis, routine use of saline flush to prevent fibrin buildup is recommended. 4.2) Routine use of thrombolytics to prevent catheter occlusion is not
Because there is indication that two reviewers did the extraction of the information for the CPG as a basic study design and used patient experiences, interventions, study outcomes and evaluations, follow-up, and the measures of study quality. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus. Seemingly, the editors were able to make decisions without any