Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Nursing Research and Practice
Volume 2015, Article ID 796762, 20 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/796762
Review Article

Disinfection of Needleless Connector Hubs: Clinical Evidence Systematic Review

1PICC Excellence, Inc., Online Education, Hartwell, GA 30643, USA
2Greenville Hospital System, Greenville, SC 29605, USA
3Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research (AVATAR group) Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia
4Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia

Received 12 November 2014; Accepted 19 February 2015

Academic Editor: Claire M. Rickard

Copyright © 2015 Nancy L. Moureau and Julie Flynn. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. Needleless connectors (NC) are used on virtually all intravascular devices, providing an easy access point for infusion connection. Colonization of NC is considered the cause of 50% of postinsertion catheter-related infections. Breaks in aseptic technique, from failure to disinfect, result in contamination and subsequent biofilm formation within NC and catheters increasing the potential for infection of central and peripheral catheters. Methods. This systematic review evaluated 140 studies and 34 abstracts on NC disinfection practices, the impact of hub contamination on infection, and measures of education and compliance. Results. The greatest risk for contamination of the catheter after insertion is the NC with 33–45% contaminated, and compliance with disinfection as low as 10%. The optimal technique or disinfection time has not been identified, although scrubbing with 70% alcohol for 5–60 seconds is recommended. Studies have reported statistically significant results in infection reduction when passive alcohol disinfection caps are used (48–86% reduction). Clinical Implications. It is critical for healthcare facilities and clinicians to take responsibility for compliance with basic principles of asepsis compliance, to involve frontline staff in strategies, to facilitate education that promotes understanding of the consequences of failure, and to comply with the standard of care for hub disinfection.

1. Background

Intravenous catheters and those related devices used to gain access to the veins for the purpose of infusing medications or solutions have evolved significantly over the past three decades. One of the more noticeable changes involves the way intravenous devices are accessed. Early concerns over needle safety for healthcare workers led to the creation of products that provide needle-free access. While these products did eliminate the risk of accidental needle injury for the clinician, some needleless products raised new issues for the patient; namely, a noted increase in the occurrence of catheter associated bloodstream infections (CABSI) and central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) [13]. Risk factors for infection include poor adherence to aseptic technique, needleless connector (NC) design variations, and inconsistent health care staff education and training [13]. NC are used on virtually all intravascular devices in the USA; they provide an easy access point for syringe or tubing attachment and have now become the central access point for all connections. Yet, despite providing some level of safety, concerns over infection related to NC contamination exist. Surface design, gaps around valve closure surface, segmented fluid pathway with dead space, differing internal mechanisms, clear or obscured visibility, variable blood reflux, clamping sequences, and different flushing instructions, depending on the type of NC, all play a part in the level of risk associated with the device. Before the advent of NC, clinicians had an intuitive understanding that prior to penetrating the septum with the needle the septum required disinfection. Current surface disinfection of NC is not necessarily intuitive. Initially, needleless split septum access points used a blunt “needle-looking” type cannula. As a result, the disinfection process remained intuitive. Split septum access devices continue to be recommended as a lower risk option for needleless connection; however, they have lost popularity because they require multiple parts and pieces for access and allow direct needle access through the septum/diaphragm leading many facilities to switch to luer access devices. With the changes to the access point using direct luer connection through the NC, the intuitive sense to disinfect the surface prior to access is lost; many clinicians fail to realize the consequences of this breech in aseptic technique [46]. Colonization of catheter hubs and NC, with subsequent bacterial ingress into the catheter lumen, is considered the cause of 50% of postinsertion catheter-related infections [37]. Disinfection of the exposed surface of the NC is necessary to avoid contamination and subsequent intraluminal biofilm formation and protect patients from infection.

Vast improvements have been made in the reduction of CLABSIs attributed to insertion procedures. The results of the groundbreaking Keystone initiative demonstrated the effect of five measures, known as the Central Line Bundle, on the improvement of outcomes during insertion of central venous catheters [64, 105]. Consistent application of the bundle, with compliance verified during the insertion procedure (checklist), has reduced insertion related CLABSI by more than 44% in the USA [52]. However, despite the successes of the insertion bundle, full compliance more than seven years later is still lacking, with reported compliance rates at one institution ranging from 0.0% at the beginning of the intervention to 37.1% (139/375), according to the Jeong study, with similar results in other institutions [65, 66, 106, 107]. Even in institution where full compliance of the bundle exists, CLABSIs are still occurring [108]. Disinfection of the NC access site was not included in the insertion related central line bundle. The goal of any effective infection prevention program is zero CLABSIs. To reach the goal of zero, consideration must be given for the pathogenesis of catheter related infections and an investigation into current human factors of catheter management preventing achievement of this goal.

While many experts agree that application of the insertion bundle is one of the best ways to prevent insertion-related infection, the bundle does not address NC, aseptic access, or any postinsertion catheter usage issues. A Pennsylvania study reported that 71.7% (468/653) of central line infections occurred five days or more after insertion and may have been directly related to use and care of intravascular devices [60, 108110]. Contamination of the catheter directly through the catheter hub has been confirmed through published studies [12, 13, 111113]. These studies found that bacteria identified on external hub surfaces were also present in biofilm sampled from random locations within the needless connector. Research performed at one institution revealed that patient skin flora was not the source of catheter related bloodstream infections in any of their cases; all infections in this study originated from the catheter hub [6, 113]. Infections later in the life of the catheter develop from improper catheter manipulation, failure to perform hand hygiene, inadequate time to clean NC, inadequate training, and poor access and exit site management [2, 67, 110, 112]. Disinfection of a catheter hub prior to flushing or prior to the administration of medications is required for all aseptic access, yet in the Karchmer study, 31% of clinicians did not even attempt to disinfect, even when under active observation [1, 64, 88, 114]. In a study by Lee the disinfection compliance by clinicians prior to NC access was measured at only 10% [115]. This common break in aseptic technique sets the stage for biofilm formation within NC and catheters and increases the potential for delayed infection of both central and peripheral catheters [14, 60, 68, 112, 116]. The results of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Advisory Report and independent biofilm sampling of NC suggest that more attention is needed for aseptic access and maintenance practices [109].

2. What Is Disinfection?

According to the Epic3 Evidence-Based Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare Infections, disinfection is defined as the use of chemical or physical methods to reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms on surfaces to a level at which they are not able to cause harm, but which does not usually destroy spores [53]. These guidelines further state that disinfection methods used in combination with cleaning blood or other debris off the surface as disinfectants have limited ability to penetrate organic material [8]. The Association for Professionals in Infection Control (APIC) defines disinfection as a process to eliminate microorganisms accomplished with the use of liquid chemicals or pasteurizing; process works best by having proper contact time and dilution of disinfection agent [117]. Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control [8], the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [9], the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America [10], and the Infusion Nurses Society [11, 118] state that NC should be consistently and thoroughly disinfected using mechanical friction with 70% alcohol, alcoholic chlorhexidine, or povidone iodine prior to each access of an intravascular device and listed in evidence as a Category 1A.

2.1. Goal

The goal of this review is to assess current literature related to disinfection of NC to establish recommendations that promote aseptic access, reducing infection risk for the patient.

2.2. Search Methodology

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the supporting evidence for disinfection practices of NC, catheter hub, stopcock, and side ports that reduce the transfer of microorganisms through intravascular device access. This report is based on an electronic systematic literature search and review of published materials from Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, Ovid, jStor, CINAHL, Cochrane, Athens, and ScienceDirect by cross-referencing these key terms for years 1977–December 2014. High level evidence from RCTs that tested “cause and effect” relationships between different disinfection approaches for NC and patient infection was initially sought. Since no RCTs were found, lower level evidence including clinical and in vitro (laboratory) studies was reviewed, as long as these included reporting of quantitative data. Broad MeSH search term “disinfection” and “needleless connector” combinations were used with additional keywords listed below:(i)disinfection, antiseptic, alcohol, chlorhexidine, and anti-infective agents,(ii)intravenous, intravascular, and vascular access,(iii)hub, catheter hub, scrub the hub,(iv)intravenous connector, NC, luer activated device, and mechanical valve,(v)aseptic practices, contamination, and compliance,(vi)education, staff education, and medical education,(vii)infection, infection prevention, catheter related infections, CLABSI, bloodstream infections, bacteremia, sepsis, and cross-infection,(viii)catheter maintenance and line care,(ix)insertion and bundle,(x)intravenous technology,(xi)catheter cap, access port, disinfecting cap, antimicrobial cap, hub protection cap, and port protector,(xii)Infection prevention guidelines and recommendations.

Additional studies were cross-referenced through manual search. Conference posters and abstracts were included in the review. Manufacturers websites of disinfection ports and two manufacturers (Excelsior Medical, Neptune, NJ; Ivera Medical Corporation, San Diego, CA) were contacted directly requesting all published materials and posters on disinfection products. There were no identified formal published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of NC disinfection practices, indicating a knowledge gap in this area. Search results were evaluated by title, abstract, and content. Selected papers were subjected to full-text assessment. Initial selection process and critique was performed by one researcher (NM), with evidence rating performed by two researchers independently (NM and JF), with any disagreement in quality rating resolved by discussion.

2.3. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Criteria checklist for inclusion was any NC disinfection publications and abstracts that fit subcategories for disinfection, hub contamination/infection prevention, education/compliance, surveys, and guidelines/recommendations for disinfection. Inclusion criteria consisted of publications meeting search terms and topic requirements under sub groupings:(1)disinfection agents used on intravascular device surfaces including studies and reviews of NC and infection prevention,(2)sources of contamination through intravascular devices,(3)education and compliance for infection prevention,(4)guidelines and recommendations for infection prevention with disinfection.

Exclusion criteria were(i)nonresearch papers,(ii)studies of adult, pediatric, or neonatal increasingly important role patients not inclusive of intravascular device disinfection practices,(iii)primary populations outside acute care,(iv)publications not translated into English,(v)studies prior to 1984.

3. Results

The systematic review of these topics yielded a total of 433 papers and abstracts. After initial review 259 articles did not meet eligibility requirements and were removed. Included studies consisted of 140 publications dealing with disinfection/catheter hub/NC contamination with 34 abstracts/posters. Of the studies 67 were graded according to the strength of the study. The study results and ratings of the literature are included in Tables 15 and Figure 1, with recommendations are represented in Table 6.

Table 1: Disinfecting agents and devices literature.
Table 2: Needleless connector literature.
Table 3: Poster and abstract presentations on disinfecting caps/port protectors.
Table 4: Why disinfect? Sources of contamination literature.
Table 5: Education and compliance literature.
Table 6
Figure 1
3.1. Why Disinfect?

A catheter is inserted into a vein or artery to provide a pathway for the administration of medications or solutions necessary to improve a patient’s health or condition. Because catheters provide an open conduit into the vasculature, a NC is attached, via luer threaded connection, to the integrated hub end of the catheter establishing a closed system. Studies reflecting benefits of closed systems with NC have trended toward demonstration of protection for catheter and hub colonization [4, 119]. In a prospective controlled study by Rosenthal and Maki and multicenter prospective cohort by Rangel-Frausto et al., open systems compared to closed systems resulted in major reductions in catheter related infections [120]. NC used as a closed system must be weighed with consideration for potential negative factors of design features, poor aseptic practices, and lack of disinfection that all contribute to risk of infection [2, 121, 122].

Any puncture through the protective skin barrier creates a portal for bacteria to enter the body. Recognized routes of catheter contamination are classified as either extraluminal or intraluminal and include (a) migration of microorganisms from the skin at the insertion site (considered the source in short term infections), (b) catheter hub contamination, (c) hematogenous seeding from another infection source in the body, and (d) direct contamination from an infusate [8, 108, 123]. After insertion of a catheter, introduction of microorganisms occurs primarily from two routes: the skin/insertion track or through the lumen of the catheter [15, 124127]. The greatest risk for contamination of the catheter after insertion is the access hub with 33–45% (402/900) contaminated in normal patient use [6, 15, 128132]. In early studies by Sitges-Serra colonization of the catheter hub was considered the primary pathogenesis of catheter associated infection [15, 113]. Linares and colleagues reported 14 episodes of sepsis (70% of total catheter related septic events) resulted from hub-related contamination [127, 133]. Moro reported hub colonization in only 3.5% (21/607), but found that this group was responsible for severe systemic infections more frequently [128]. Studies indicate that, during periods of nonuse, colony forming units (CFU) are present on access hubs in numbers ranging from 15 to 1000 CFU, representing quantities sufficient to cause contamination, biofilm formation, and potentially bacteremia if not sufficiently disinfected prior to access [3, 5, 12, 99, 110, 111, 134143]. As demonstrated by multiple studies, infections are drastically lower or eliminated by disinfecting or covering the access hub with an antimicrobial cap [14, 1620, 113, 127, 144146]. Hub contamination plays an increasingly important role with infection risk the longer the catheter is in place [15]. Intraluminal contamination and subsequent colonization become more prominent with longer dwell times [110, 147]. Perez and associates found 59% (42/75) of one group of NC colonized with biofilm and Salzman found that 71% (20/28) of catheter related infections originated in the catheter hub presumably from contamination [15, 21, 22, 148]. Clearly hub contamination is a causative element in catheter related infections and one that demonstrates the necessity for effective hub disinfection prior to access [110, 113, 127, 133, 144, 149].

3.2. What to Disinfect?

Disinfection points to gain access to intravenous or intravascular devices may include tubing side ports, direct catheter connections, stopcocks with needle free caps, NC of various types (split septum, mechanical valves, positive pressure valves, zero, or neutral connectors), traditional silicone septum, or other forms of access integrated with the catheter or tubing. Any intravascular access point with a surface open to the environment requires disinfection prior to use, as it acts as the immediate portal of entry for intraluminal contaminants [23, 99, 113, 127, 133, 144, 150152]. Needle free devices constitute more than 80% of access devices, are recommended by Centers for Disease Control for all tubing/catheter access, and are now more common than traditional covered septal access ports which allowed needles to pass easily through the silicone or rubber covered access [8, 153]. Primary areas of focus for disinfection of access sites are the point where the sterile syringe or tubing contacts the site, as in the top septum surface, and the threads or side surfaces [7, 143, 154]. Manufacturers are required to include instructions for device use and disinfection recommendations with each product to guide in the correct and safe usage of the NC.

Effective disinfection of a NC is influenced by several factors including: ability to clean the NC surface, the amount and position of grooves or gaps present, and the roughness or smoothness of the septum [1, 3, 7, 69, 150, 154156]. All NC consist of a septum, a fluid pathway and a mechanism for activation; the design, space, volume, and human factors all affect how easy a product is to use and disinfect, and may also act as contributors to the potential risk of catheter associated bloodstream infection [3, 69, 150, 155, 157, 158]. NC have gaps of differing widths between the septal seal and the housing which may allow ingress of microorganisms [7, 23, 99, 143]. Adequate cleaning or need for additional cleaning of the septal access site may be based on the specific design features of the individual NC [2, 4, 5, 7, 70, 111, 129, 153, 159161]. New products or technology should be transitioned into a healthcare facility only after a complete evaluation of both the research and the performance of the product to determine the impact of the change on patient outcomes [71, 97, 98, 149, 160, 162166].

3.3. Disinfection Practices

Recommendations from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Infusion Nurses Society state clinician should minimize contamination risk by disinfection the access ports of the add-on device using friction with an appropriate disinfectant (70% alcohol, chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, and iodophors) prior to any access [8, 11, 24, 167, 168]. The 70% isopropyl alcohol wipe is most commonly used to disinfect the access surface of NC and has been proven effective or ineffective at disinfection times from 5 seconds to 60 seconds [14, 19, 2427, 131, 151, 169177]. The major biocide effect of alcohol occurs while wet and immediately after drying, allowing for dehydration of bacterial cells, whereas alcoholic chlorhexidine is most effective during the drying process, where it enters the cell to cause destruction providing ongoing antimicrobial effect [150, 172]. The disinfecting action of chlorhexidine in combination with alcohol, allowing for both immediate and sustained action; has proven to be more effective than either agent alone [21, 131, 168, 172, 176, 178180]. Faster drying time with alcohol makes it superior to other disinfection agents and provides an advantage to chlorhexidine when used in combination. Effectiveness of 70% alcohol disinfection is variable based on application techniques and characteristics of NC surface and design, leading some researchers to conclude that complete disinfection of microorganisms on some NC surfaces may not be achievable [12]. In the Menyhay prospective in vitro study, 20 (67%) of 30 NC disinfected with 70% alcohol resulted in transmission of contaminants (442–25,000 CFU) yet 60 tested with barrier caps (containing 2% chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol) showed only one (1.6%) with transmission of contaminants [19]. In both the Kaler laboratory and the Ruschman randomized experimental design studies, using a 15 second and 60 second scrub respectively, disinfection with 70% alcohol eliminated all microorganisms [173, 181]. Kaler performed laboratory testing on contaminated NC with a small sample using 70% alcohol and alcoholic chlorhexidine and found both to be effective for hub disinfection [181]. Two additional studies gave conflicting results. Rupp demonstrated 5 second alcohol disinfection was effective; this was in direct contrast with the Smith study where contact time of 10/12/15 seconds was deemed adequate, but 5 and 8 seconds were not as effective to prevent bacterial transfer [170, 171]. Simmons and colleagues found 3/10/15 seconds significantly decreased the bacterial load in an in vitro laboratory study, with some level of bacteria remaining during all duration levels tested; disinfection failed to completely eliminate contaminants [13]. More studies are needed to provide efficacy for optimal time necessary to eliminate surface contaminants.

Research of Macias and associates with 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol on skin proved an added substantive effect, even against freshly introduced organisms, for up to 24 hours, establishing this agent as a superior disinfecting agent when longer action is needed, in comparison with single agents of 70% isopropyl alcohol, 10% povidone iodine and 10% sodium hypochlorite [172]. Alcoholic chlorhexidine performed consistently well or better than other disinfection agents in multiple studies [21, 24, 131, 168, 172, 179, 182]. In the research by Hong et al., a 5 second scrub with alcoholic chlorhexidine fully disinfected NC surfaces treated with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa [179]. In the most recent Epic3 United Kingdom report of evidence-based guidelines, recommendations by expert consensus include a 15 second cleansing with alcoholic chlorhexidine prior to and after each access [53]. In actual practice disinfection prior to access is expected, while cleansing after each access is rarely done.

3.4. Passive Disinfection

Disinfection research includes various forms of passive antimicrobial hub protection with 70% alcohol caps (SwabCap, Excelsior Medical, Neptune, NJ; Curos Port Protector, Ivera Medical, San Diego, CA;, EffectIV-Cap, Hospira, Lake Forest, IL; DualCap, Catheter Connections, Salt Lake City, UT), iodinated alcohol hub, povidone iodine gauze and specialty covers, and combination chlorhexidine/alcohol caps [12, 14, 18, 19, 23, 2543, 146, 178, 183192]. In a randomized prospective trial by Pittiruti, 46 catheters received a 70% alcohol port protector with no detected CLABSIs over 707 catheter days, colonization in two catheters and no contaminated blood cultures [18]. Of note the Pittiruti study resulted in reductions of CLABSIs in the port protector/disinfection cap group and the control group, with improvements attributed to both the disinfection caps and educational efforts. These disinfection caps applied and left in place provide active mechanical friction along with longer contact time creating a physical and chemical barrier between the lumen and the environment [26]. As a progressive CLABSI intervention Posa at St. Joseph Mercy Health System implemented an insertion bundle, chlorhexidine bathing, a maintenance bundle, chlorhexidine dressing for central catheters, and educational programs, however it was not until implementing the 70% alcohol disinfection cap that their rates of CLABSI fell to zero and remained from 2011 to the end of 2012 The disinfection cap placed on all access ports eliminates human factor issues requiring clinicians to remember to carry the necessary disinfection supplies to the bedside or even to remember to perform the act of disinfection before each access [187]. An in vivo hospital study by DeVries gave nurses a choice to use either this single use cleansing cap or a disinfection cap to leave on the NC access site, clinicians preferred the longer lasting disinfection cap [14]. In another retrospective study, Schears noted a predisinfection cap CLABSI rate of 1.682/1000 catheter days and a CLABSI rate of 0.6461/1000 catheter days after implementing disinfection caps, representing a statistically significant 61% reduction in CLABSI [32]. In Wright et al.’s study at NorthShore University HealthSystem, a four University Hospital system, the intervention with 70% alcohol disinfection caps reported CLABSI rates declining from 1.42/1000 catheter days (16/11,540) to 0.69 (13/18,972) with a 95% confidence interval, based on 799 enrolled patients, representing a statistically significant decrease [26]. Another alcoholic hub protector study by Sweet et al. included 472 patients and 3005 catheter days and showed a decrease in overall CLABSIs from 2.3 to 0.3/1000 catheter days and a PICC CLABSI reduction from 2.3 to 0, a statistically significant change, with an 85.2% compliance rate [31]. Stango and associates reported a 50% reduction in CLABSIs and a savings of $464,440 per year after alcoholic cap implementation [184]. Numerous studies have demonstrated consistent clinical effectiveness of 70% alcohol caps alone in studies and abstracts graded C or D [18, 26, 27, 31, 33, 41, 43, 178, 189, 191194]. Alcoholic chlorhexidine caps are also effective in preventing contamination and completely disinfecting NC access surfaces (combination of alcoholic chlorhexidine in cap form is not commercially available in the USA) [2, 12, 19, 178, 179].

Another engineered solution for hub cleaning involves a 70% alcohol foam cap (Site Scrub, Bard Access, Salt Lake City, UT) designed for use as an access site cleansing cap for single use, then discarded. The Holroyd in vitro study at University of Florida compared the single use of this cleansing cap with 70% alcohol to traditional 70% alcohol wipes [151]. When the cleansing cap was used on stopcocks Holroyd found contamination and increased CFU. This study found 70% alcohol wipes and this alcohol cleansing cap were both effective on the surface of NC and catheter hubs [151]. Other groups also used this single use cleansing cap in combination with other 70% alcohol disinfecting caps designed to be left in place until the next access [14, 177].

3.5. Clinical Implications

Since the advent of NC as access hubs for the administration of medications or fluids, there has been a need to verify compliance with disinfection practices prior to access. During the period of needle usage for catheter access, nurses and doctors intuitively knew the necessity of disinfecting the access septum prior to inserting a needle. With NC, these questions arise: is disinfection always performed prior to access? Is disinfection performed in an effective manner? Do clinicians fully understand the consequences of not performing disinfection? Disinfection practices with alcohol or alcoholic chlorhexidine that include adequate contact disinfection time are effective if performed at all. According to a recent publication by Ryder, an issue was raised regarding whether failure to disinfect is considered a medical error and if so, is this omission considered negligence? [100] Catheter associated infections are a significant safety issue, and contamination caused by lack of aseptic technique is preventable. Once contamination occurs, bacteria attach to the inner lumen of the catheter, begin to grow and form biofilm, making successful eradication extremely difficult [6, 2830, 113, 127, 133, 140142, 144, 195]. Joint Commission now requires hospitals in the USA to protect patients by having a standard and measurable protocol for hub/access site disinfection [61, 62, 196]. Measurement of compliance with hub disinfection is challenging, requiring direct observation of the action unless disinfection caps/ports are used on all NC hubs as a form of verification. Passive disinfection through hub protectors/disinfection caps have differing designs and colors, leading to easy recognition and validation of compliance with usage. Reimbursement structures in the USA that now promote pay for performance and penalize poor outcomes will assist in driving these passive safety strategies that aid in monitoring and improving compliance with disinfection.

3.6. Issues of Compliance and Monitoring

While policies for disinfection of access devices are a first step, methods to validate actual practice and patient safety must be integrated into hospital culture. The central line bundle checklist is used as evidence to demonstrate compliance with safety practices during insertion, but the aspect of day to day management is not addressed in the bundle. Care and management of catheters takes up more than 99% of the dwell time of a catheter compared to the one hour or less for catheter insertion. Compliance with aseptic practice is important for both insertion and daily usage. Consistent hand hygiene and gloving performed prior to any procedure or even touching of a catheter helps reduce bacterial transfer. Application of alcoholic chlorhexidine to disinfect skin for central line insertions and now, more and more with peripheral catheter insertions, is helping to reduce bacterial ingress to the bloodstream. Maximum sterile barriers also reduce contamination during the insertion process so that overall, CLABSI rates occurring in the first few days of insertion continue to fall.

Even with the success of the Central Line Bundle on CLABSI reductions, a majority of hospitals remain well above zero for infections. Access and maintenance activities with the catheters may be to blame. When CLABSIs occur well after the 96 hour mark, contamination of the catheter through the NC is likely the culprit. From the evidence presented, NC and catheter hubs are a primary source of bacterial contamination, and subsequent transmission of contamination into the catheter lumen [6, 30, 113, 127, 133, 142, 144]. Just one omission of scrubbing the hub prior to access permits bacterial entry, attachment and biofilm formation that allow the bacteria to strengthen prior to release into the bloodstream. Preventing this form of contamination requires teaching and constant reinforcement of the required practice of regular and consistent disinfection prior to every access. Verification of compliance with hub disinfection by clinicians requires direct observation of the action unless disinfection hub protectors are used, providing a form of passive immediate visual verification. More and more studies are demonstrating lack of compliance with hub disinfection despite educational initiatives and better disinfection agents. Disinfection methods that incorporate prolonged duration of contact with an antiseptic agent to significantly decrease the level of surface bacteria present may provide a solution to the problem of hub contamination and variation in NC designs.

Various studies provide statements regarding conformity or lack of conformity concerning disinfection practices, attributing noncompliance to a lack of universal protocols, excessive workloads (e.g., when clinicians become busy, they are less likely to comply), or just forgetting to bring alcohol wipes to the bedside [54, 64, 72, 8993, 188]. The Smith study on behavioral intention indicated a negative correlation between performing optimal disinfection with increasing age of clinicians and more years of experience [91]. Clearly there are human factors working against disinfection of hubs prior to access requiring engineered solutions such as passive disinfecting cap strips hanging on intravenous pump poles, supply dispensers of alcohol wipes at the bedside, or on the intravenous pump to ensure greater, even 100% compliance with disinfection each and every time [91, 170]. Monitoring and validation of hub disinfection compliance is necessary to determine if other measures are needed such as disinfection caps/port protectors. In an evaluation of 5877 physicians, nurses and technicians, Jardim et al. documented compliance with hub disinfection 38.7% of the time, leaving more than 61% of accesses without disinfection, leading to possible contamination and biofilm growth [92]. Platace et al. evaluated clinician hands during invasive procedures demonstrating 100% of the 48 nurses sampled exceeded acceptable levels of microorganisms, with the potential to contaminate and cause bloodstream infection [90]. Studies show there is a need for clear recommendations and practices that prevent transmission of contaminants through NC [68, 90]. Targeting of education for providers responsible for CVAD insertion and care for identifying appropriate indications, performing insertion with the central line bundle, performing surveillance of CLABSI and scrubbing the hub with an appropriate antiseptic are Category IA recommendations by AHRQ as critical components of a comprehensive CLABSI prevention program [9].

3.7. Risk of Bias and Limitations

This systematic review highlights the lack of available high quality research in this area that tests the cause and effect relationship between NC disinfection practices and patient infection outcomes. It also asks the question “What are we basing our clinical practice guidelines on for disinfection of NC?” Absence of high quality RCT evidence required authors to include any clinical observational and cohort studies and laboratory studies. Overall, the evidence base for the effectiveness of various disinfection strategies is low level, resulting in recommendations compiled from the available publications. The strength of this review is that it includes all relevant, currently available pieces of evidence; however there remains a high level of uncertainty in the estimates of effectiveness of various decontamination techniques, and these are highly likely to change with the publication of new studies in the literature. Studies to date have a risk of unintentional bias due to the lack of randomization and control groups/strategies, in addition to small sample sizes and retrospective study designs. Randomized controlled studies are needed to rigorously evaluate the efficacy of disinfection practices and antiseptic hub protectors in preventing patient infection.

3.8. Research Priorities

Adequately large randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to establish high quality evidence of the efficacy of various disinfection practices to prevent infection. Randomized controlled trials are needed to identify if risk reduction differs with the type of antiseptic, for example, 70% alcohol versus 70% alcohol and chlorhexidine, or with differing concentrations of chlorhexidine in their efficacy for disinfection NC. Research may also validate the substantive effect of alcoholic chlorhexidine on NC and its continued antimicrobial activity on these surfaces, potentially establishing a reduced cleaning frequency or duration for NC. Study considerations for passive disinfection coupled with prefilled flush syringes could demonstrate drastic reduction of hub contamination and intraluminal biofilm colonization, but ultimately patient infection outcomes are needed. Research that replicates solid studies provides a stronger foundation for evidence-based practice and should be encouraged. Translational research is growing, providing clinical implications that directly apply to bedside practices [14, 5759, 67, 70, 7375]. NC disinfection is an excellent subject for efficacy studies utilizing comparative research for various disinfection approaches identifying relative reductions in patient infection risk. Claire Rickard, Ph.D., Professor of Nursing with Griffith University, states it well “We are belatedly realising that to eliminate these complications (infections) we must conduct research, implement evidence-based interventions and reduce the clinical practice variations that lead to their occurrence” [197]. Research and study are necessary as an integral part of professional practice, providing a means to direct clinical activity and to share with rising young clinicians long after we are gone.

4. Conclusion

Aseptic technique is the foundation for safe delivery of intravenous medications and solutions. More and more studies reveal lack of compliance with disinfection of access ports prior to and after access, despite educational initiatives, and better disinfection agents [1, 26, 27, 38, 54, 57, 64, 67, 69, 72, 74, 78, 83, 8893, 188, 198205]. Rather than creating devices such as the ultraviolet C port to eradicate contamination within the hub, the goal should be to eliminate surface pathogens before entering the NC or catheter. Passive disinfection caps reduce guess work, provide clinicians with a point of use solution, and reduce contamination. It is critical for healthcare facilities and clinicians to take responsibility for compliance with aseptic technique for NC disinfection, to monitor compliance regularly, to involve frontline staff in solutions, and to facilitate education that promotes understanding of the consequences of failure to comply with the standard of care for access site disinfection.

Conflict of Interests

Open access fees were paid by first author. Nancy L. Moureau is a speaker and educational consultant with 3M, Access Scientific, Analogic, Angiodynamics, Arrow/Teleflex, Baxter, Carefusion, Cook, Excelsior, Genentech, Hospira, Nexus, Vascular Pathways, and Vygon; chief executive officer of PICC Excellence, Inc., and clinician at Greenville Memorial Hospital. Julie Flynn is a research doctorate candidate (April, 2015) with the Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Griffith University, and active clinician at Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital.

Authors’ Contribution

Nancy L. Moureau was responsible for the study design, searches and selection of publications, analysis of selected studies, and drafting of the paper. Julie Flynn performed grading of selected publications and contributed to second paper revision.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Gigi Macher, Nancy League, and Charles Rushing, M.D., for their assistance in organizing, reviewing materials, and editing the paper and Griffith University, Samantha Keogh, and Claire Rickard for facilitating access to literature review and allocation of resources for grading of the studies.

References

  1. L. Hadaway, “Needleless connectors: Improving practice, reducing risks,” Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 20–30, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. I. F. Btaiche, D. S. Kovacevich, N. Khalidi, and L. F. Papke, “The effects of needleless connectors on catheter-related bloodstream infections,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 277–283, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. W. R. Jarvis, C. Murphy, K. K. Hall et al., “Health care-associated bloodstream infections associated with negative- or positive-pressure or displacement mechanical valve needleless connectors,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1821–1827, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. E. Bouza, P. Muñoz, J. López-Rodríguez et al., “A needleless closed system device (CLAVE) protects from intravascular catheter tip and hub colonization: a prospective randomized study,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 279–287, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. Chernecky and J. Waller, “Comparative evaluation of five needleless intravenous connectors,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1601–1613, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. A. Sitges-Serra, “Strategies for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 391–395, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. W. Jarvis, “Choosing the best design for intravenous needleless connectors to prevent healthcare-associated bloodstream infections,” Infection Control Today, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1–3, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  8. N. P. O'Grady, M. Alexander, L. A. Burns et al., “Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. e162–e193, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. V. Chopra, S. Krein, R. Olmstead, N. Safdar, and S. Saint, “Prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections: brief update review,” in Making Health Care Safer II: An Updated Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Safety Practices. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 211, chapter 10, pp. 88–109, RAND Corporation, US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Santa Monica, Calif, USA, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  10. J. M. D. Marschall, L. A. D. O. S. Mermel, M. M. D. M. P. H. Fakih et al., “Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 753–771, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. INS, “Infusion nursing standards of practice,” Journal of Infusion Nursing Supplement, vol. 34, supplement 1, pp. S1–S110, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  12. S. Z. Menyhay and D. G. Maki, “Disinfection of needleless catheter connectors and access ports with alcohol may not prevent microbial entry: the promise of a novel antiseptic-barrier cap,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 23–27, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. Simmons, C. Bryson, and S. Porter, “‘Scrub the hub’: cleaning duration and reduction in bacterial load on central venous catheters,” Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 31–35, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. DeVries, P. S. Mancos, and M. J. Valentine, “Reducing bloodstream infection risk in central and peripheral intravenous lines: Initial data on passive intravenous connector disinfection,” The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 87–93, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. B. Salzman and L. G. Rubin, “Relevance of the catheter hub as a portal for microorganisms causing catheter-related bloodstream infections,” Nutrition, vol. 13, no. 4, supplement, pp. 15s–17s, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. P. Halpin, P. O'Byrne, G. McEntee, T. P. J. Hennessy, and R. B. Stephens, “Effect of a Betadine connection shield on central venous catheter sepsis,” Nutrition, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 33–34, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. T. Stotter, H. Ward, A. H. Waterfield, J. Hilton, and A. J. Sim, “Junctional care: the key to prevention of catheter sepsis in intravenous feeding,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 159–162, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. Pittiruti, “Port protectors and educational intervention: the key to zero central line-associated bloodstream infection—a randomized controlled trial,” in Proceedings of the Association for Vascular Access Scientific Meeting, National Harbor, Md, USA, September 2014.
  19. S. Z. Menyhay and D. G. Maki, “Preventing central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections: development of an antiseptic barrier cap for needleless connectors,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. S174–e1, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. N. Moureau and R. Dawson, “Passive disinfection product effectiveness study,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, National Harbor, Md, USA, September 2010.
  21. M. B. Salzman, H. D. Isenberg, and L. G. Rubin, “Use of disinfectants to reduce microbial contamination of hubs of vascular catheters,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 475–479, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. B. Salzman, H. D. Isenberg, J. F. Shapiro, P. J. Lipsitz, and L. G. Rubin, “A prospective study of the catheter hub as the portal of entry for microorganisms causing catheter-related sepsis in neonates,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 487–490, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. Ryder, “Access site and hub disinfection: in vitro testing of a novel device,” in Proceedings of the SHEA Annual Scientific Meeting, Abs #168, 2009.
  24. A. L. Casey, S. Burnell, H. Whinn, T. Worthington, M. H. Faroqui, and T. S. J. Elliott, “A prospective clinical trial to evaluate the microbial barrier of a needleless connector,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 212–218, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. J. P. Kennedy, R. A. Lasher, D. Solomon, and R. W. Hitchcock, “Disinfection of male luer style connectors for prevention of catheter related bloodstream infections using an isopropyl alcohol dispensing cap,” Journal of Medical Devices, vol. 4, no. 2, Article ID 027509, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. M.-O. Wright, J. Tropp, D. M. Schora et al., “Continuous passive disinfection of catheter hubs prevents contamination and bloodstream infection,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 33–38, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. C. Ramirez, A. M. Lee, and K. Welch, “Central venous catheter protective connector caps reduce intraluminal catheter-related infection,” Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 210–213, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. Segura, C. Alia, J. Valverde, G. Franch, J. M. T. Rodriguez, and A. Sitges-Serra, “Assessment of a new hub design and the semiquantitative catheter culture method using an in vivo experimental model of catheter sepsis,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 2551–2554, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. Segura, F. Alvarez-Lerma, J. M. Tellado et al., “A clinical trial on the prevention of catheter-related sepsis using a new hub model,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 223, no. 4, pp. 363–369, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. A. Sitges-Serra, R. Hernandez, S. Maestro, T. Pi-Suner, J. M. Garces, and M. Segura, “Prevention of catheter sepsis: the hub,” Nutrition, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 30s–35s, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. A. Sweet, A. Cumpston, F. Briggs, M. Craig, and M. Hamadani, “Impact of alcohol-impregnated port protectors and needleless neutral pressure connectors on central line-associated bloodstream infections and contamination of blood cultures in an inpatient oncology unit,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 931–934, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. G. Schears, “Cap the connector: save the patient,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, 2011.
  33. M. Pratt and M. Leone, “Coram spcialty infusion services: an evaluation of the effectiveness of intravenous disinfection caps in the prevention of CVAD infections in parenteral nutrition,” in Proceedings of the A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Nutrition Week Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2011.
  34. D. Maslak, D. Rossettini, L. Trento, and M. Leone, “Maintenance in the home parenteral nutrition patient = reduced CRBSIs,” in Proceedings of the Infusion Nursing Society Annual Convention, Phoenix, Ariz, USA, 2014.
  35. H. Contreras, “Use of disinfection cap/flush syringe combination to address bloodstream infection and related issues,” in Proceedings of the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association for Vascular Access (AVA '12), San Antonio, Tex, USA, 2012.
  36. S. McCalla, J. Greco, M. Warren, P. Byrne, and J. Bogetti, “Integrated delivery system of disinfection cap and flush syringe, plus staff education, reduce bloodstream infections and treatment costs,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, San Antonio, Tex, USA, 2012.
  37. B. Bor, C. Johnson, and C. Noble, “It takes a village to prevent central venous catheter infections and promote safety of patients,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, San Antonio, Tex, USA, 2012.
  38. G. Kaye and T. Anthony, “Weiss memorial hospital: new disinfection cap achieves joint commission compliance for valve disinfection not achievable with alcohol prep pads,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, National Harbor, Md, USA, 2010.
  39. M. Pavia, “Testing elimination of an infection prevention device from catheter bundle and potential effect on overall catheter bloodstream infection rate,” in Proceedings of the APIC Annual Conference, vol. 41, p. S36, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. S. Sumner, K. C. Merrill, L. Linford, and C. Taylor, “Decreasing CLABSI rates and cost following implementation of a disinfectant cap in a tertiary care hospital,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 6, p. S37, 2013, 40th Annual Conference Abstracts, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, APIC 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. B. Danielson, S. Williamson, G. Kaur et al., “Decreasing the incidence of central line-associated blood stream infections using alcohol-impregnated port protectors (AIPPS) in a neonatal intensive care unit,” in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference Abstracts (APIC '13), Fort Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2013.
  42. J. Kelleher, R. Almeida, H. Cooper, and S. Stauffer, “Providence sacred heart medical center and children's hospital: achieving zero CoN CLBSI in the NICU,” in Proceedings of the APIC Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2013.
  43. M. Moore, K. Gripp, H. Cooper, and R. Almeida, “Providence sacred heart medical center: impact of port protectors on incidence of central line infections,” in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference Abstracts (APIC '13), Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, June 2013.
  44. A. Dobin, “Broward Health Coral Springs Medical Center: bloodstream infections eliminated by use of plastic cap for disinfecting needleless connectors,” in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) Meeting, Baltimore, Md, USA, June 2011.
  45. D. G. Maki, M. Ringer, and C. J. Alvarado, “Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters,” The Lancet, vol. 338, no. 8763, pp. 339–343, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. K. Muffly, M. L. Beach, Y. C. Isaac Tong, and M. P. Yeager, “Stopcock lumen contamination does not reflect the full burden of bacterial intravenous tubing contamination: analysis using a novel injection port,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 734–739, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. A. Luebke, M. J. Arduino, D. L. Duda et al., “Comparison of the microbial barrier properties of a needleless and a conventional needle-based intravenous access system,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 437–441, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. M. DeVries, P. Mancos, and M. Valentine, “Improving catheter cleaning and maintenance in central and peripheral lines,” in APIC Annual Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2013.
  49. P. Posa, “Improving IV connector disinfection by using human factors engineering to identify effective, nurse-friendly solutions,” in Proceedings of the APIC Annual Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2014.
  50. M. Pittiruti, H. Hamilton, R. Biffi, J. MacFie, and M. Pertkiewicz, “ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications),” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 365–377, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. N. L. Moureau and R. B. Dawson, “Keeping needleless connectors clean, part 1,” Nursing, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 18–19, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. CDC, National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Eliminat, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga, USA, 2012.
  53. H. P. Loveday, J. A. Wilson, R. J. Pratt et al., “Epic3: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in nhs hospitals in England,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 86, supplement 1, pp. S1–S70, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. N. Moureau, “Safe patient care when using vascular access devices,” British Journal of Nursing, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. S14–S21, 2013. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. D. K. Warren, J. E. Zack, J. L. Mayfield et al., “The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU,” Chest, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 1612–1618, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. CDC, Safe Healthcare: Healthcare-Associated Infections, CDC Safe Healthcare Blog, 2013.
  57. A. Mian, C. Russell, M. Honeycutt, and C. Oldridge, “Multidisciplinary approach to reduction of central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI): an institutional experience with collaborative guidelines,” The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 128–131, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Rowley, S. Clare, S. MacQueen, and R. Molyneux, “ANTT v2: an updated practice framework for aseptic technique,” British Journal of Nursing, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. S5–S11, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. S. Rowley and S. Clare, “Aseptic non touch technique (ANTT): reducing healthcare associated infections (HCAI) by standardising aseptic technique with ANTT across large clinical workforces,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 39, no. 5, p. E90, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  60. N. Moureau, Winning the War on CLABSIs: The Role of Education and New Technology, ICT, 2009.
  61. Joint Commission, Accreditation Program: 2010 Hospital National Patient Safety Goals, 2010, edited by: Joint Commission.
  62. R. Dawson and N. Moureau, “Implementing new joint commission requirements using revised protocol to disinfect intravenous access ports/needleless connectors,” in Proceedings of the 12th Annual NPSF Patient Safety Congress, Orlando, Fla, USA, 2010.
  63. INS, Policies and Procedures for Infusion Nursing, 4th edition, 2011.
  64. N. Moureau, “Catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention: what is missing?” British Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 502–510, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  65. G. D. Sacks, B. S. Diggs, P. Hadjizacharia, D. Green, A. Salim, and D. J. Malinoski, “Reducing the rate of catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a surgical intensive care unit using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Central Line Bundle,” The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 207, no. 6, pp. 817–823, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. R. D. Lobo, A. S. Levin, L. M. Brasileiro Gomes et al., “Impact of an educational program and policy changes on decreasing catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a medical intensive care unit in Brazil,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 83–87, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. D. K. Warren, S. E. Cosgrove, D. J. Diekema et al., “A multicenter intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 662–669, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. W. Zingg, A. Imhof, M. Maggiorini, R. Stocker, E. Keller, and C. Ruef, “Impact of a prevention strategy targeting hand hygiene and catheter care on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 2167–2173, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. C. Chernecky, L. Casella, E. Jarvis, D. Macklin, and M. Rosenkoetter, “Nurses' knowledge of intravenous connectors,” Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 405–415, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. J. C. Yébenes, M. Delgado, G. Sauca et al., “Efficacy of three different valve systems of needle-free closed connectors in avoiding access of microorganisms to endovascular catheters after incorrect handling,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2558–2561, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. J. Segreti, S. Garcia-Houchins, L. Gorski et al., “Consensus conference on prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections: 2009,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 126–133, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. W. Zingg, A. Imhof, M. Maggiorini, R. Stocker, E. Keller, and C. Ruef, “Impact of a prevention strategy targeting hand hygiene and catheter care on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 2167–2173, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. D. K. Warren, J. E. Zack, M. J. Cox, M. M. Cohen, and V. J. Fraser, “An educational intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections in a nonteaching, community medical center,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1959–1963, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. C. M. Coopersmith, J. E. Zack, M. R. Ward et al., “The impact of bedside behavior on catheter-related bacteremia in the intensive care unit,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 131–136, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. A. Corona and F. Raimondi, “Prevention of nosocomial infection in the ICU setting,” Minerva Anestesiologica, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 329–337, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. K. Cooper, G. Frampton, P. Harris et al., “Are educational interventions to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections in intensive care unit cost-effective?” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 47–52, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. G. K. Frampton, P. Harris, K. Cooper et al., “Educational interventions for preventing vascular catheter bloodstream infections in critical care: evidence map, systematic review and economic evaluation,” Health Technology Assessment, vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 1–365, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. A. S. McAlearney and J. L. Hefner, “Facilitating central line–associated bloodstream infection prevention: a qualitative study comparing perspectives of infection control professionals and frontline staff,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 42, no. 10, supplement, pp. S216–S222, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  79. D. Cozanitis and P. Mäkelä, “The infected peripheral intravenous catheter: a degree of ignorance, neglect and indifference,” Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 59–63, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. D. Macklin, C. Chernecky, K. Nugent, and J. L. Waller, “A collaborative approach to improving patient care associated with vascular access devices,” Journal of Vascular Access Devices, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 8–13, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. P. Ramritu, K. Halton, D. Cook, M. Whitby, and N. Graves, “Catheter-related bloodstream infections in intensive care units: a systematic review with meta-analysis,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. M. G. Cherry, J. M. Brown, T. Neal, and N. B. Shaw, “What features of educational interventions lead to competence in aseptic insertion and maintenance of CV catheters in acute care? BEME Guide No. 15,” Medical Teacher, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 198–218, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. M. G. Cherry, J. M. Brown, G. S. Bethell, T. Neal, and N. J. Shaw, “Features of educational interventions that lead to compliance with hand hygiene in healthcare professionals within a hospital care setting. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 22,” Medical Teacher, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. e406–e420, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. N. Arora, K. Patel, C. A. Engell, and J. A. LaRosa, “The effect of interdisciplinary team rounds on urinary catheter and central venous catheter days and rates of infection,” The American Journal of Medical Quality, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 329–334, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  85. K. R. Herzer, L. Niessen, D. O. Constenla, W. J. Ward, and P. J. Pronovost, “Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement programme to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units in the USA,” British Medical Journal, vol. 4, no. 9, Article ID e006065, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  86. N. L. Moureau and R. B. Dawson, “Needleless connector know-how,” Nursing Management, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 40–41, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. N. L. Moureau and R. B. Dawson, “Keeping needleless connectors clean. Part 2,” Nursing, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 61–62, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. L. Hadaway, “Intermittent intravenous administration sets: survey of current practices,” Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 143–147, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. B. M. Farr, “Reasons for noncompliance with infection control guidelines,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 411–416, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. D. Platace, I. Klava, L. Antonevica et al., “The study of the risk factors of health care—associated infections in patients' care with invasive devices,” Acta Chirurgica Latviensis, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50–55, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. J. S. Smith, K. M. Kirksey, H. Becker, and A. Brown, “Autonomy and Self-efficacy as influencing factors in nurses' behavioral Intention to disinfect needleless intravenous systems,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 193–200, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. J. M. Jardim, R. A. Lacerda, N. D. J. D. Soares, and B. K. Nunes, “Evaluation of practices for the prevention and control of bloodstream infections in a government hospital,” Revista da Escola de Enfermagem, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 38–45, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. Y. J. Hsu, K. Weeks, T. Yang, M. D. Sawyer, and J. A. Marsteller, “Impact of self-reported guideline compliance: bloodstream infection prevention in a national collaborative,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 42, no. 10, supplement, pp. S191–S196, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  94. D. K. Warren, D. S. Yokoe, M. W. Climo et al., “Preventing catheter-associated bloodstream infections: a survey of policies for insertion and care of central venous catheters from hospitals in the prevention epicenter program,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. K. Y. Blot, S. I. Blot, and D. Vandijck, “Implementation strategies for quality improvement interventions to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 42, no. 5, article e382, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. K. Blot, J. Bergs, D. Vogelaers, S. Blot, and D. Vandijck, “Prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections through quality improvement interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 96–105, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  97. A. M. Fernandez, J. J. Schrogie, W. W. Wilson, and D. B. Nash, “Technology assessment in healthcare: a review and description of a ‘best practice’ technology assessment process,” Best Practices and Benchmarking in Healthcare, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 240–253, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. (NICE) NIfHaCE, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, NICE, 2013, http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/1-introduction.
  99. M. Ryder, “Improve CRBSI prevention: target intraluminal risks,” Executive Healthcare Management, no. 8, pp. 1–4, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  100. M. Ryder, Health-Care-Acquired Infections: Unfortunate Complication or Medical Error?Advocate, 2006.
  101. M. Ryder, “Evidence-based practice in the management of vascular access devices for home parenteral nutrition therapy,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 30, supplement 1, pp. S82–S93, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. National Health and Medical Research Council, NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf.
  103. J. G. DeVries and G. C. Berlet, “Understanding levels of evidence for scientific communication,” Foot & Ankle Specialist, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 205–209, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. University of Newcastle, Evidence Pyramid, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, 2014, http://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/content.php?pid=259537&sid=2147128.
  105. P. Pronovost, D. Needham, S. Berenholtz et al., “An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU: Keystone Project,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 355, no. 26, pp. 2725–2732, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. I. S. Jeong, S. M. Park, J. M. Lee, J. Y. Song, and S. J. Lee, “Effect of central line bundle on central line-associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 710–716, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. B. L. Lobo, G. Vaidean, J. Broyles, A. B. Reaves, and R. I. Shorr, “Risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with peripherally inserted central catheters,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 417–422, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. I. I. Raad, M. Luna, S.-A. M. Khalil, J. W. Costerton, C. Lam, and G. P. Bodey, “The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 271, no. 13, pp. 1014–1016, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. J. Davis, “Central-line-associated bloodstream infection: comprehensive, data-driven prevention,” Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 100–104, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  110. L. A. Mermel, “What is the predominant source of intravascular catheter infections?” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 211–212, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. C. Chernecky, “Biofilm formation in connectors characterized by using electron microscopy,” in Proceedings of the Association for Vascular Access Scientific Meeting, National Harbor, Md, USA, September 2014.
  112. M. A. Ryder, “Catheter-related infections: it's all about biofilm,” Topics in Advanced Practice Nursing, vol. 5, no. 3, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. A. Sitges-Serra, P. Puig, J. Linares et al., “Hub colonization as the initial step in an outbreak of catheter-related sepsis due to coagulase negative staphylococci during parenteral nutrition,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 668–672, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. T. Karchmer, E. Cook, E. Palavecino, C. Ohl, and R. Sherertz, “Needleless valve ports may be associated with a high rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection [poster 307],” in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (Los Angeles), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Alexandria, Va, USA, 2005.
  115. J. Lee, “Disinfection cap makes critical difference in central line bundle for reducing CLABSIs,” in Proceedings of the APIC Annual Conference, vol. 39, p. E64, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, USA, 2013.
  116. L. Hadaway, “Short peripheral intravenous catheters and infections,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 230–240, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. R. Carrico, Ed., APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology, Association for Professional in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Washington, DC, USA, 2nd edition, 2005.
  118. Infusion Nurses Society, Policies and Procedures for Infusion Nursing, 2002.
  119. B. S. Niël-Weise, T. J. Daha, and P. J. van den Broek, “Is there evidence for recommending needleless closed catheter access systems in guidelines? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 406–413, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. V. D. Rosenthal and D. G. Maki, “Prospective study of the impact of open and closed infusion systems on rates of central venous catheter-associated bacteremia,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 135–141, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. M. Ishizuka, H. Nagata, K. Takagi, and K. Kubota, “Needleless closed system does not reduce central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: a retrospective study,” International Surgery, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 88–93, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. K. Field, C. McFarlane, A. C. Cheng et al., “Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with a needleless, mechanical valve-based intravenous connector in an Australian hematology-oncology unit,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 610–613, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. N. Safdar and D. G. Maki, “The pathogenesis of catheter-related bloodstream infection with noncuffed short-term central venous catheters,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 62–67, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. L. C. Hadaway, “Skin Flora and Infection,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 44–48, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. D. G. Maki, C. E. Weise, and H. W. Sarafin, “A semiquantitative culture method for identifying intravenous catheter related infection,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 296, no. 23, pp. 1305–1309, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  126. D. G. Maki, S. M. Stolz, S. Wheeler, and L. A. Mermel, “Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: a randomized, controlled trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 257–266, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  127. A. Sitges-Serra, J. Linares, and J. Garau, “Catheter sepsis: the clue is the hub,” Surgery, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 355–357, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  128. M. L. Moro, E. F. Viganò, and A. C. Lepri, “Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. The Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections Study Group,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 15, no. 4, part 1, pp. 253–264, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  129. B. Brismar, L. Jordahl, B. Nystrom, and N. Pettersson, “Bacterial contamination of intravenous line side ports of different designs,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31–33, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  130. V. M. Seymou, T. S. Dhallu, H. A. Mos, S. E. Tebb, and T. S. J. Elliot, “A prospective clinical study to investigate the microbial contamination of a needleless connector,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 165–168, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. A. L. Casey, T. Worthington, P. A. Lambert, D. Quinn, M. H. Faroqui, and T. S. J. Elliott, “A randomized, prospective clinical trial to assess the potential infection risk associated with the PosiFlow needleless connector,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 288–293, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  132. R. J. Sherertz, T. B. Karchmer, E. Palavecino, and W. Bischoff, “Blood drawn through valved catheter hub connectors carries a significant risk of contamination,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1571–1577, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  133. J. Liñares, A. Sitges-Serra, J. Garau, J. L. Pérez, and R. Martín, “Pathogenesis of catheter sepsis: a prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative cultures of catheter hub and segments,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 357–360, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  134. D. G. Maki, “Preventing infection in intravenous therapy,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 141–153, 1977. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  135. J. M. Walz, K. Faris, and S. O. Heard, “Who let the bugs in?” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 2689–2690, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  136. J. C. Yébenes, R. Martinez, M. Serra-Prat et al., “Resistance to the migration of microorganisms of a needle-free disinfectable connector,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 462–464, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  137. J. D. Brown, H. A. Moss, and T. S. J. Elliott, “The potential for catheter microbial contamination from a needleless connector,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 181–189, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  138. B. W. Trautner and R. O. Darouiche, “Catheter-associated infections: pathogenesis affects prevention,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 164, no. 8, pp. 842–850, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  139. J.-C. Lucet, J. Hayon, F. Bruneel, J.-L. Dumoulin, and M.-L. Joly-Guillou, “Microbiological evaluation of central venous catheter administration hubs,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 40–42, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  140. R. M. Donlan, “Biofilms and device-associated infections,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 277–281, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  141. R. M. Donlan and J. W. Costerton, “Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167–193, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  142. R. Donlan, “Biofilms on central venous catheters: is eradication possible?” in Bacterial Biofilms, vol. 322 of Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, pp. 133–161, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  143. M. Ryder, G. Hamilton, M. Hamilton, and G. James, “Bacterial transfer through needlefree connectors: comparison of nine different devices,” in Proceedings of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Annual Scientific Meeting, Baltimore, Md, USA, 2007.
  144. A. Sitges-Serra, J. Linares, J. L. Perez, E. Jaurrieta, and L. Lorente, “A randomized trial on the effect of tubing changes on Hub contamination and catheter sepsis during parenteral nutrition,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 322–325, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  145. C. León, F. Álvarez-Lerma, S. Ruiz-Santana et al., “Antiseptic chamber-containing hub reduces central venous catheter-related infection: a prospective, randomized study,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1318–1324, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  146. M. Leone and L. R. Dillon, “Catheter outcomes in home infusion,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 84–91, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  147. I. Raad, W. Costerton, U. Sabharwal, M. Sacilowski, E. Anaissie, and G. P. Bodey, “Ultrastructural analysis of indwelling vascular catheters: a quantitative relationship between luminal colonization and duration of placement,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 400–407, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  148. E. Perez, M. Williams, J. T. Jacob et al., “Microbial biofilms on needleless connectors for central venous catheters: comparison of standard and silver-coated devices collected from patients in an acute care hospital,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 823–831, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  149. R. W. Loftus, H. M. Patel, B. C. Huysman et al., “Prevention of intravenous bacterial injection from health care provider hands: the importance of catheter design and handling,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 1109–1119, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  150. D. Macklin, “Catheter management,” Seminars in Oncology Nursing, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 113–120, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  151. J. L. Holroyd, D. A. Paulus, K. H. Rand, F. K. Enneking, T. E. Morey, and M. J. Rice, “Universal intravenous access cleaning device fails to sterilize stopcocks,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 333–343, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  152. D. G. Maki, “In vitro studies of a novel antimicrobial luer-activated needleless connector for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1580–1587, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  153. R. Orenstein, “The benefits and limitations of needle protectors and needleless intravenous systems,” Journal of Intravenous Nursing, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 122–128, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  154. W. Jarvis, “Needleless connectors and the improvement of patient and healthcare professional safety,” Infection Control Today, vol. 17, no. 12, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  155. ECRI Institute, “Evaluation: needleless connectors,” Health Devices, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 261–281, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  156. L. Hadaway, “Hub disinfection and its impact on Catheter-related infections,” Journal of Vascular Access Devices, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 33–36, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  157. C. Chernecky, D. Macklin, L. Casella, and E. Jarvis, “Caring for patients with cancer through nursing knowledge of IV connectors,” Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 630–633, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  158. C. D. Salgado, L. Chinnes, T. H. Paczesny, and J. R. Cantey, “Increased rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with use of a needleless mechanical valve device at a long-term acute care hospital,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 684–688, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  159. J. L. Lockman, E. S. Heitmiller, J. A. Ascenzi, and I. Berkowitz, “Scrub the Hub! catheter needleless port decontamination,” Anesthesiology, vol. 114, no. 4, article 958, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  160. Y. P. Tabak, W. R. Jarvis, X. Sun, C. T. Crosby, and R. S. Johannes, “Meta-analysis on central line-associated bloodstream infections associated with a needleless intravenous connector with a new engineering design,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1278–1284, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  161. N. Khalidi, D. S. Kovacevich, L. F. Papke-O'Donnell, and I. Btaiche, “Impact of the positive pressure valve on vascular access device occlusions and bloodstream infections,” The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 84–91, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  162. S. Schilling, D. Doellman, N. Hutchinson, and B. R. Jacobs, “The impact of needleless connector device design on central venous catheter occlusion in children: a prospective, controlled trial,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 85–90, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  163. J. Luna, G. Masdeu, M. Pérez et al., “Clinical trial evaluating a new hub device designed to prevent catheter-related sepsis,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 655–662, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  164. L. C. Hadaway, “Evaluation and use of advanced I.V. technology. Part 2: patient controlled analgesia,” Journal of Intravenous Nursing, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 184–191, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  165. D. D. McMahon, “Evaluating new technology to improve patient outcomes: a quality improvement approach,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 250–255, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  166. S. Cicalini, F. Palmieri, and N. Petrosillo, “Clinical review: new technologies for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections,” Critical Care, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 157–162, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  167. S. T. Cookson, M. Ihrig, E. M. O'Mara et al., “Increased bloodstream infection rates in surgical patients associated with variation from recommended use and care following implementation of a needleless device,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 23–27, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  168. J. S. Soothill, K. Bravery, A. Ho, S. Macqueen, J. Collins, and P. Lock, “A fall in bloodstream infections followed a change to 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropanol for catheter connection antisepsis: a pediatric single center before/after study on a hemopoietic stem cell transplant ward,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 626–630, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  169. S. Sannoh, B. Clones, J. Munoz, M. Montecalvo, and B. Parvez, “A multimodal approach to central venous catheter hub care can decrease catheter-related bloodstream infection,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 424–429, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  170. J. S. Smith, G. Irwin, M. Viney et al., “Optimal disinfection times for needleless intravenous connectors,” The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 137–143, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  171. M. E. Rupp, S. Yu, T. Huerta et al., “Adequate disinfection of a split-septum needleless intravascular connector with a 5-second alcohol scrub,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 661–665, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  172. J. H. Macias, V. Arreguin, J. M. Munoz, J. A. Alvarez, J. L. Mosqueda, and A. E. Macias, “Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 634–637, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  173. K. L. Ruschman and J. S. Fulton, “Effectiveness of disinfectant techniques on intravenous tubing latex injection ports,” Journal of Intravenous Nursing, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 304–308, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  174. J. S. Garland, R. K. Buck, P. Maloney et al., “Comparison of 10% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter colonization in neonates: a prospective trial,” Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 510–516, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  175. E. M. Young, M. L. Commiskey, and S. J. Wilson, “Translating evidence into practice to prevent central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections: a systems-based intervention,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 503–506, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  176. W. Kaler and R. Chinn, “Successful disinfection of needleless access ports: a matter of time and friction,” The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 140–142, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  177. K. Guerin, J. Wagner, K. Rains, and M. Bessesen, “Reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections by implementation of a postinsertion care bundle,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 430–433, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  178. A. L. Buchman, J. Spapperi, and P. Leopold, “A new central venous catheter cap: decreased microbial growth and risk for catheter-related bloodstream infection,” Journal of Vascular Access, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  179. H. Hong, D. F. Morrow, T. J. Sandora, and G. P. Priebe, “Disinfection of needleless connectors with chlorhexidine-alcohol provides long-lasting residual disinfectant activity,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. e77–e79, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  180. M. A. Mazher, A. Kallen, J. R. Edwards, and R. M. Donlan, “An In Vitro evaluation of disinfection protocols used for needleless connectors of central venous catheters,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 282–287, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  181. W. Kaler and R. Chinn, “Successful disinfection of needleless access ports: a matter of time and friction,” Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 140–147, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  182. F. Esteve, M. Pujol, E. Limón et al., “Bloodstream infection related to catheter connections: a prospective trial of two connection systems,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 30–34, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  183. N. Moureau and R. Dawson, “Passive disinfection product effectiveness study,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 610–613, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  184. C. Stango, D. Runyan, J. Stern, I. Macri, and M. Vacca, “A successful approach to reducing bloodstream infections based on a disinfection device for intravenous needleless connector hubs,” Journal of Infusion Nursing, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 462–465, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  185. J. Oto, H. Imanaka, M. Konno, E. Nakataki, and M. Nishimura, “A prospective clinical trial on prevention of catheter contamination using the hub protection cap for needleless injection device,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 309–313, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  186. B. Lopansri, I. Nicolescu, A. Tomich, J. Belmares, and P. Schreckenberger, “Microbial colonization of needleless intravenous connectors and the male luer end of IV administration sets: does the partner matter?” in Proceedings of the 2011 SHEA Annual Scientific Meeting, April 2011.
  187. P. Posa and G. Siedlaczek, “Improving IV connector disinfection by using human factors engineering to identify effective, nurse-friendly solutions,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 41, no. 6, supplement, p. S22, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  188. R. Seiler and S. Meyer, “Improving infection control compliance using combined cap/flush syringe technology to reduce central line associated bloodstream infections,” in Proceedings of the AVA Annual Scientific Meeting, Nashville, Tenn, USA, 2013.
  189. M. Davis, Forcing the Function: Implementation and Evaluation of an IV Port Protector to Decrease CLABSI, National Teaching Institute & Critical Care Exposition, Portland, Ore, USA, 2013.
  190. F. Alasmari, N. Kittur, A. Russo et al., Impact of Alcohol Impregnated Protectors on Incidence of Catheter-Associated Blood Stream Infections, Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2012.
  191. A. Pong, C. Salgado, M. Speziale, P. Grimm, and C. Abe, “Rady children's hospital san diego: reduction of central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in a neonatal intensive care unit with use of access site disinfection caps,” in Proceedings of the 2011 IDSA Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass, USA, 2011.
  192. J. Shiber, G. Jolicoeur, and T. Crouchet, “Ochsner medical center: reducing central line-associated bloodstream infections through the addition of disinfecting port protector caps to the central line bundle,” in Proceedings of the Annual Research Day, New Orleans, La, USA, May 2014.
  193. K. C. Merrill, S. Sumner, L. Linford, C. Taylor, and C. Macintosh, “Impact of universal disinfectant cap implementation on central line–associated bloodstream infections,” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1274–1277, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  194. M. Leone and M. Pratt, “Preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections in home infusion patients through the use of disinfection caps,” Infusion, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 10–14, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  195. B. Caillouet, “Protection of intraluminal pathway with zero fluid displacement connector reduces catheter-related bloodstream infections in a comprehensive cancer center,” The Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 86–89, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  196. Joint Commission, National Patient Safety Goal: NPSG 07.04.01, The Joint Commission Accreditation Program: Hospital, 2011.
  197. C. M. Rickard, J. Webster, and E. G. Playford, “Prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter-related bloodstream infections: the need for a new focus,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 198, no. 10, pp. 519–520, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  198. C. L. Boyer and D. C. Wade, “The impact of compliance on quality outcomes in the home infusion population,” Journal of Intravenous Nursing, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. S161–S165, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  199. M. McGuckin, R. Waterman, L. Porten et al., “Patient education model for increasing handwashing compliance,” The American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 309–314, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  200. K. G. Sterba, “Controversial issues in the care and maintenance of vascular access devices in the long-term/subacute care client,” Journal of Intravenous Nursing, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 249–254, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  201. A. R. Burrell, M.-L. McLaws, M. Murgo, E. Calabria, A. C. Pantle, and R. Herkes, “Aseptic insertion of central venous lines to reduce bacteraemia: the central line associated bacteraemia in NSW intensive care units (CLAB ICU) collaborative,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 194, no. 11, pp. 583–587, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  202. M. G. Fakih, K. Jones, J. E. Rey et al., “Sustained improvements in peripheral venous catheter care in non-intensive care units: a quasi-experimental controlled study of education and feedback,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 449–455, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  203. P. Rangachari, “Effective communication network structures for hospital infection prevention: a study protocol,” Quality Management in Health Care, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 16–24, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  204. L. C. Hadaway, “CE Best-practice interventions: keeping central line infection at bay,” Nursing, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 58–63, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  205. L. Hadaway, “Bacterial infection: awareness and prevention,” Nursing Management, vol. 39, no. 10, p. 17, 2008. View at Google Scholar