{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017433751743375175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041841004184100415, 'mean_word_length': 5.080508474576271, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Two Commonly Used Methods for Securing Intravenous Cannulas.

Background
There is a wide variety of techniques to secure intravenous cannulas but little objective evidence to support their relative efficacy. This study compares the security of the two most common methods used within a major Australian Emergency Department.


Methods
The plastic sheaths of four needle-less intravenous cannulas were secured to the skin surface (not intravenously) of 40 volunteers using two different taping styles, an "under and over" method with one of the tapes applied to the posterior surface of the hub then crossed anteriorly to adhere to the opposite skin surface or "horizontal" taping with the tapes applied horizontally across the anterior surface of the hub. The peak force required to dislodge the taped cannulas using each of these different methods was then measured in both an anterograde and retrograde direction of force using a force transducer.


Results
The force required to dislodge a cannula taped in an 'under and over' taping style was significantly higher than that required for the horizontal taping in both anterograde and retrograde directions of force (p < 0.001).


Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that the "under and over" taping technique offers significantly more security than "horizontal" taping and should be considered as a more effective method for securing intravenous cannulas.