{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021494370522006142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0040941658137154556, 'mean_word_length': 4.927272727272728, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?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}}
Intravascular therapy. New challenges for infection control.

In the words of Komaroff, "It is easier and more enjoyable to 'do something' when you have learned first what to do." 1 This idea shows why guidelines for infection control in intravenous (IV) therapy have been easier to work with than those for many other areas of infection control. Indeed, studies in the past few decades have brought us to the point where infection control in IV therapy has been considered one of two instances in hospital infection control in which the efficacy of preventive action has been proved. 2 Today, however, newer aspects of diagnosis and therapy involve different equipment, techniques, and sites of access to vessels. Cannulation of arteries and large veins has become commonplace, and new methods are emerging for provision of shunt and other vascular access. 3 Intravenous therapy continues to be used frequently for hospitalized patients, 4 but in addition it has been extended