ArticleThe British journal of cardiology2024
Devising and delivering the UK's first nurse-led cardiac catheter laboratory radial access programme.
Article in The British journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, radial artery access (RAA) has been an exclusively 'physician-delivered' service, but with adequate training, nurse-led arterial cannulation can become widely adopted. In this clinical audit, senior nursing practitioners with at least two years of catheter lab experience, were offered RAA training. In phase 1 of training, two nurses were initially familiarised with a well-structured training protocol. Each of the two nurses carried out the first 50 RAA procedures under supervision on elective patients. In phase 2, candidates independently performed 100 procedures. The success and complication rates of these procedures were evaluated prior to their sign-off as competent. The procedural efficacy of nurses was compared with medical registrars of the department to assess the measures of patient satisfaction and time elapsed prior to the insertion of sheath. During the first 100 directly observed RAA procedures, nurse 1 and nurse 2 achieved success rates of 84% (42/50 procedures) and 86% (43/50 procedures), respectively. During the second phase, nurse 1 achieved a success rate of 82% (82/100 procedures), whereas nurse 2 achieved a success rate of 97% (97/100 procedures). Overall, a success rate of 88% was achieved in the first 300 patients. No significant complications were noted. In contrast to medical registrars, nurse-led cannulation was associated with a greater extent of patient satisfaction, reduced pain intensity (p<0.001), and decreased patient-on-table to sheath insertion intervals (p<0.001). During embedding of the programme, the two nursing practitioners trained additional nurses. Of the five nurses that subsequently entered into training, two have successfully completed both training phases while a further three have completed phase 1. To date, an overall success rate of 91.1% (1,307/1,435 procedures) has been documented. In conclusion, a nurse-led RAA program is feasible, with satisfactory success rates, no significant complications, and improved rates of patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.