Response to: "Should we use a patient's port as the preferred intravenous route rather than inserting an additional venous access?" (Editorial)
File version
Author(s)
Nickel, Barb
Meyer, Britt M
Gorski, Lisa A
Hadaway, Lynn
Hagle, Mary E
Clare, Simon
Rowley, Stephen
Sharpe, Elizabeth
Broadhurst, Daphne
Alexander, Mary
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract
We thank Dr. Biffi and colleagues for recognizing the robust methodology used to inform the Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice (the Standards).1 Biffi et al. critiqued the use of Committee Consensus (Table 1) to inform a clinical practice with significant influence on patient safety. The Committee Consensus rating provides expert opinion to guide practices of concern where higher levels of evidence are lacking. The foundation of the Standards is vascular preservation, irrespective of patient care settings, and sustained through careful evaluation and management of optimal vascular access by competent clinicians.
Journal Title
Journal of Vascular Access
Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
Item Access Status
Note
This publication has been entered as an advanced online version in Griffith Research Online.
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject
Cardiovascular medicine and haematology
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Peripheral Vascular Disease
Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
Persistent link to this record
Citation
Kleidon, TM; Nickel, B; Meyer, BM; Gorski, LA; Hadaway, L; Hagle, ME; Clare, S; Rowley, S; Sharpe, E; Broadhurst, D; Alexander, M, Response to: "Should we use a patient's port as the preferred intravenous route rather than inserting an additional venous access?" (Editorial), Journal of Vascular Access, 2021