Cross-sectional study assesses ICU nurses' knowledge gaps regarding CLABSI prevention guidelines, highlighting the need for better education.
Background: Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) are a major source of preventable harm in ICUs, leading to increased mortality, morbidity, and healthcare costs. ICU nurses are the frontline defenders against these infections, and their knowledge is a critical determinant of prevention success. However, studies consistently show gaps in nurses' understanding of evidence-based guidelines. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 101 ICU nurses from multiple hospitals. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge of CLABSI prevention practices based on CDC guidelines. Knowledge was evaluated via 10 yes/no questions, and a total score was calculated. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (t-tests, ANOVA) with SPSS version 26.0. Results: The study revealed a moderate overall level of knowledge. Significant knowledge gaps were identified in fundamental daily care practices: only 46.5% knew not to change dressings routinely, 45.5% knew to use a sterile dressing, and a critical low of 35.6% knew the correct protocol for replacing administration sets for continuous fluids. Statistically significant associations were found between knowledge scores and sex (p=0.035), hospital type (p=0.001), and a trend with education level (p=0.068). Prior training did not significantly impact scores (p=0.416). Conclusion: While ICU nurses possess foundational knowledge, significant and dangerous gaps persist in key areas of catheter maintenance. These findings underscore an urgent need for targeted, hands-on, and recurrent educational interventions focused on daily maintenance protocols to improve adherence to guidelines and enhance patient safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tomazeh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: