P574 - COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL ASEPTIC TECHNIQUE VERSUS STANDARD ASEPTIC NON-TOUCH TECHNIQUE (ANTT)® IN TRAINING PATIENTS TO MANAGE HOME PARENTERAL SUPPORT – A SINGLE CENTRE COHORT STUDY

P574

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL ASEPTIC TECHNIQUE VERSUS STANDARD ASEPTIC NON-TOUCH TECHNIQUE (ANTT)® IN TRAINING PATIENTS TO MANAGE HOME PARENTERAL SUPPORT – A SINGLE CENTRE COHORT STUDY

H. Malhi^1,*, N. Fitzpatrick¹, D. Lewis¹, V. Williams¹, D. Woodham¹, J. Fletcher^1,2

¹Nutrition Nurse, University Hospitals Birmingham, ²Associate Professor, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Rationale: Aseptic technique is integral to the prevention of catheter related blood stream infection (CRBSI) in patients that require home parenteral support (HPS). Evidence suggests that an aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT)® without the use of sterile gloves can be successful in training patients in administering HPS. Our aim was to compare the time taken to train patients and episodes of CRBSI when using aseptic technique versus ANTT®.

Methods: An inhouse training programme was developed using ANTT® to train patients in self-management of HPS. A comparative cohort study compared outcomes of two groups of patients between January 2024 to March 2025 (January-June ‘24 patients trained using aseptic technique, July ‘24-March ‘25 trained using ANTT®).  A convenience sample of all HPS discharged patients during the study period were selected. Data related to hours of training provided and episodes of CRBSI reported were collated on an Excel spreadsheet.

Results: In total 31 patients were discharged with 24 patients trained:  aseptic technique group n=11 male 46%, mean age 52yrs. ANTT® group n =13, male 15%, mean age 49yrs. Time to train: mean(SD) 85(98) hours and 6.9(2.9) hours, median (IQR) 23 hours (18-117) and 7 hours (4.3-8.5) respectively. In the ANTT® group, training was significantly quicker with a 69% reduction in time taken.

There were three episodes of CRBSI in the aseptic technique group during the study period. There were no CRBSI in the ANTT® group.

Conclusion: This study found that patients trained using ANTT® took significantly less time to become independent than those using traditional aseptic techniques. A lower risk of CRBSI was observed in the ANTT® group. Adopting ANTT® in training patients who require HPS is safe and effective. 

Disclosure of Interest: None declared