#1 Nursing Resource: 30,000 Nurses Visiting Daily

Log in   Sign up   Why join?   | Layout: Switch to narrow layout Color: gold style blue style rose style
Nursing Community for Nurses
Home Forums Articles Specialty Students Region Career Resources

Advanced Search Site Help Site Map

1:1 for CVVH?



Currently Online
Members: 354
Guests: 1,678
2,032

Job Spotlight
Oncology Nurse RN
Southlake, Texas
Forum Spotlight
Oncology Nursing

Nursing Degrees

Nursing Articles

Imagine.
Am I Meant To Be A Nurse?
Nurse
Health Website Analysis: allnurses.com
They Call Me The Swamp Nurse
Submit An Article

Nursing Jobs

Job Seeker: Employer:

Newsletter

Subscribe to the free allnurses.com email newsletter. We will keep you informed of nursing news, articles, discussions, and more.

Enter your email address:

Read current:
Nursing Newsletter

How-To allnurses

allnurses videos

Welcome to allnurses: A Nursing Community for Nurses

The largest most active online nursing community. Join 294,702 nurses from around the world to learn, communicate, and network. For full allnurses.com access, register today - it's free! Problems during registration? Please don't hesitate to contact support.

Would you like to comment?
Join or Login if already a member.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Jan 23, 2007, 07:57 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
1:1 for CVVH?

I thought CVVH was 1:1. I interviewed at a MICU and they staff it as 2:1 uncless unstable. Any thoughts?

Top
  #2  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 01:55 PM
Dinith88 (Male)
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

Originally Posted by bonodonnaonaroll View Post
...unless unstable. Any thoughts?
The whole point of CRRT is that the patient is too 'unstable' for conventional dialysis... If the unit routinely classifies patients on CRRT as 'stable', i'd be suspicious...

Top
  #3  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 02:08 PM
delta32's Avatar
delta32 (Female)
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

I believe the Norm is a 1:1 ratio for thoses patients. I would be cautions about joining there so that you are not place in a hard situation.

HTH
Jamie

Top
  #4  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 02:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

Our unit is 1:1. How in the world could you get anything done with a second pt?

Top
  #5  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 08:04 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

I just left a MICU job where CRRT pts were routinely 2:1. Even if they were on Levo and paralyzed they would be paired...and sometimes with another not so stable pt or another one with every 1 hr blood sugars. I worked there almost 7 long and hard years. I am so glad not to be worked like a dog anymore. It wasn't a safe place to be, but I guess it kept their budget on track. They were a for-profit hospital and most concerned with the bottom line.

Top
  #6  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 08:39 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

1:1 for us

Top
  #7  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 08:51 PM
traumaRUs's Avatar
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

Like another poster stated, CVVH is for UNSTABLE patients that can't handle regular dialysis. Ridiculous that it would be anything BUT 1:1.

Here is a PowerPoint presentation from a university teaching hospital that clearly states CVVH is 1:1 nursing care:

grove.ufl.edu/~weineid/RenalLectures/GME/ARF in the ICU.pdf -

Another article from the Resp and Crit Care Medicine journal:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/co...full/162/3/777

And finally, common sense needs to prevail. I'd head on down the road to the next ICU.

Top
  #8  
Old Jan 24, 2007, 10:37 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

Ohhh...don't get me wrong....I agree totally. It just wasn't the case where I worked. Just like paralyzed patients should always be 1:1. That wasn'r always the case either.

Top
  #9  
Old Jan 26, 2007, 08:25 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Re: 1:1 for CVVH?

Let me preface by saying that I believe far too many patients that are in ICU's are paired, and that CRRT should be a 1:1. Otherwise, the patients are not getting the quality of care they need or deserve.
That said, forgive me for the following rant and feel free to skip to the next posting- I am also becoming convinced that we are using CRRT too late in the game due to the propensity of renal docs to bend toward traditional dialysis for whatever reason, (comfort with technology, reimbursement, etc.) I had to do some research on the subject lately, and in Italy and Australia the propensity is toward putting patients on the machines earlier. The patient outcomes are better and renal recovery more likely in the studies I've seen. Granted, there are flaws and the populations are small, but it does deserve a closer look. Think about it- You have a patient in the early phase of sepsis, the kidney's are showing insufficiency and we watch them. We give nephrotoxic antibiotics and we watch them. We put them on pressors because they are not perfusing and we watch them. Now we are in renal failure and maybe we should think about dialysis, but they are hemodynamically unstable so let's put them on CRRT. Maybe, when the kidney's were telling us they needed help, we could have at least mitigated some of the damage done by the disease process. Proactive instead of reactive therapy.- Just a thought

Top
Remove this ad - Upgrade your Membership Sponsored Links
 
Would you like to comment?
Join or Login if already a member.



Currently Active Users Viewing: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



New To Site?
Need Help?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.

1:1 for CVVH?

Copyright © 1996-2008, allnurses.com. All rights reserved.  allnurses.com, Inc. Advertising Information