In the article that appeared on page 33 of the January/February 2009 issue, some table and figure citations were cited incorrectly in the "Results" section. The corrected citations appear in the paragraphs below:

Initially, 188 patients were included in the peripheral IV study. Peripheral catheters showed little change in occlusion rates and complications between months 1 and 3 (Table 4). However, there was an increase in the number of days the IV lasted. During the first month when only the MV device was used, 24% of peripheral sites lasted 3 days. During month 3, when the antireflux device was used, 51% of the peripheral sites lasted 3 days (Table 3 and Figure 2). Phlebitis rates for peripheral IVs showed a decrease when the antireflux device was used. Initial phlebitis rates were 10% (7 of 69) in the first month, whereas in month 2, they decreased to 6% (3 of 50), and in month 3, the rates dropped to 4% (2 of 55) (Figure 1).

Because of these findings on peripheral IVs, the study was expanded to determine the feasibility of increasing IV site and administration set changes to 96 hours from 72 hours while maintaining a low phlebitis rate. The expanded study took place over a 2-month period in June and July 2007. During the first month of the expanded study, IV sites were changed every 96 hours, and during the second month, both IV sites and administration sets were changed every 96 hours instead of the standard 72 hours. A 2-month total of 412 IVs were monitored, with an average phlebitis rate of 3.8%: 9 of 191 for a 4.7% phlebitis rate in June and 7 of 221 for a 3.1% phlebitis rate in July (Table 5). Grade 4 phlebitis was not noted during this 2-month period (Figure 3).

The errors have been noted in the online version of the article, which is available at http://www.journalofinfusionnursing.com.

Reference