dgkh000222 10.3205/dgkh000222 urn:nbn:de:0183-dgkh0002220 Letter to the Editor Kampf Kampf Günter G Prof. Dr.

Bode Science Center, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstr. 27, 22525 Hamburg, GermanyBode Science Center, Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, GermanyInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine, Greifswald, Germany

guenter.kampf@bode-chemie.de author Reise Reise Gesche G

Hospital Hygiene, University Medical Center, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

author James James Claudia C

Bode Science Center, Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

author Gittelbauer Gittelbauer Kirsten K

Directorate for patients and care management, University Medical Center, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

author Gosch Gosch Jutta J

Hospital Hygiene, University Medical Center, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

author Alpers Alpers Birgit B

Directorate for patients and care management, University Medical Center, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 compliance peripheral venous catheter insertion standard operating procedure 20140307 engl 2196-5226 9 1 GMS Hygiene and Infection Control GMS Hyg Infect Control 02 LetterReply to: Improving patient safety by doing less rather than more: many peripheral intravenous catheters are unnecessary. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2014; 9(1):Doc03 We would like to thank Egerton-Warburton et al. for their comment to our study . The question whether a peripheral venous catheter was necessary at the first place is certainly a very relevant one, and we are grateful that our colleagues from Australia pointed it out. In our study we did not assess the necessity of a peripheral venous catheter, only its insertion was observed. The reason was that it would have been necessary to follow up each patient with the peripheral venous catheter, at least until its first use but ideally for 3 days in order to verify if it was used or not. Unfortunately it was not possible in our study to do that. The idea, however, is very challenging and clinically relevant. In clinical practice it will probably be worth to restrict the insertion of a peripheral venous catheter to those patients (e.g. already in the ambulance) who will definitely or very likely get an infusion or intravenous medication. If, by doing that, a substantial proportion of peripheral venous catheters is not inserted, it is a valuable and easy contribution to reduce the risk of local or systemic catheter-associated infections. NotesCompeting interestsClaudia James and Prof. Dr. Günter Kampf are paid employees of Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. Egerton-Warburton D Craig S Stuart R Dendle C Improving patient safety by doing less rather than more: many peripheral intravenous catheters are unnecessary 2014 GMS Hyg Infect Control Doc03 Egerton-Warburton D, Craig S, Stuart R, Dendle C. Improving patient safety by doing less rather than more: many peripheral intravenous catheters are unnecessary. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2014;9(1):Doc03. DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000223 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000223 Kampf G Reise G James C Gittelbauer K Gosch J Alpers B Improving patient safety during insertion of peripheral venous catheters: an observational intervention study 2013 GMS Hyg Infect Control Doc18 Kampf G, Reise G, James C, Gittelbauer K, Gosch J, Alpers B. Improving patient safety during insertion of peripheral venous catheters: an observational intervention study. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2013;8(2):Doc18. DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000218 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000218 0 0 0 0