A Scientific Explanation For Why There Are So Many IV, Blood Draw And Injection Of Contrast Failures.

Abstract In 2008, there were 37.5 million hospital admissions in the United States. Every hospital patient gets at least one blood draw on admission, 7 out of 10 get an IV, and 3 out of 10 get an injection of contrast totaling a minimum of 263 million vein access procedures in hospitals alone; and at least 4 out of every 10 sticks fail, and not just once. There is a 40% failure rate on every attempt. That calculates out to an estimated 174 million veni- puncture failures divided between the IV, the blood draw, and the injection of contrast. Why so many failures? The primary explanation is that the current venipuncture methods are not science-based; they are evidence-based, anecdotally and empirically based, trial- and-error based, and rooted in the 19th?century.

According to history, two thousand or more years ago bloodletting began, the first form of vein access. And in the 5th-19th?centuries, when it was most popular, that primitive form of vein access involved the use of a scalpel and a tourniquet and other primitive devices.1,2?Was the tourniquet used to promote venous distention, to bleed more; was it used to prevent the venous blood flow from going up, so more would go out (the ‘damming’ effect’): or was it used because they feared that bleeding to death could actually occur and was, therefore, used in its truest sense – to stop bleeding? Only vague written descriptions of the practice exist and only a general description of the thought process behind the practice can be found. But considering the absence of scientific information about the body at that time, using the tourniquet to prevent bleeding to death is the logical answer.

But what we do know for sure is that 2000 years ago, when vein access began, the medical community did not have the knowledge about anatomy and physiology, or the tool technology that we have now. We also know that in the 5th?-19th?centuries it was primarily a barber who did bloodletting. Barbers were not scientists, nor were they science educated. So the foundation for vein access, laid in those days, was not based upon science.

And, in spite of the advances in the tools that have been made over the last 200 years, like the hypodermic needle and its use to enter a vein, and the vacutainer system in 1949 that sucks blood into the tube for diagnostic blood draws, and other advances in tool technology, the actual procedure of locating and accessing the vein has not changed (much); they still smack, slap, flick and tap the vein and they still use the tourniquet.

The venipuncture procedure of today was built on that 5th-19th?century non-scientific foundation. And that is why there are so many venipuncture failures.

This article will describe and debunk just a few of the well-established anecdotal and empirical practices of this old procedure. There are too many to identify all of them here.

As mentioned in the opening statement, in 2008, in the U.S. hospitals alone, there were over 174 million vein access failures, and that doesn’t even begin to describe all of the collateral damage and affected medical outcomes associated with these failures, not does it take into account outpatient procedures, or procedures elsewhere in the World. But how did we arrive at that ‘failure’ number?

Calculations used to arrive at this number, were based upon these factors:

1. The AHA’s reported statistics for hospital admissions in 2008 of 37 million.3
2. AHA’s calculated number of hospital days for 2008 - 200 million hospital days.3
3. CDC reported statistics that the LOS for 2008 - 5.5 days4

The following estimated numbers for these vein access procedures was based upon a 5.5 average hospital LOS and typical ordering frequency of these procedures.

1. Every patient gets a blood draw on admission and usually daily for the LOS. 37 million x 5.5 LOS days = 203 million blood draws
2. Five out of every 10 patients get an IV on admission and at least one required IV change during that 5.5 LOS (and not factoring in the IV changes due to IV infiltrations which has an approximate 50% occurrence rate)
3. 37 million x 0.5 x 2 during LOS = 36 million IVs
4. Three out of every 10 patients get an injection of contrast for an x-ray procedure on admission and one more during that 5.5 day LOS.
5. 37 million x 0.33 x 2 = 24 million injections of contrast
6. Giving us a total of: 203 + 36 + 24 =?263 million vein accesses in 2008?(min.)?Now we need to factor in the industry recognized failure rate.
7. The industry acknowledges a failure rate experience of 30-40% with vein access procedures in the three disciplines; nursing, laboratory medicine and radiology.
8. With a 40% failure rate for each stick, and an industry accepted limit of up to 6
9. sticks per procedure, if need be, these are the numbers:
10. 1st?stick attempt failures – 263 million x 0.40 = 105 million failures 2nd?stick attempt failures – 105 million x 0.40 = 42 million failures 3rd?stick attempt failures – 42 million x 0.40 = 16.8 million failures 4th?stick attempt failures - 16.8 million x 0.40 = 6.7 million failures 5th?stick attempt failures – 6.7 million x 0.40 = 2.7 million failures 6th?stick attempt failures - 2.7 million x 0.40 = 1 million failures ....and, at this point, they usually go and get a ‘sure sticker’....
11. The total number of vein access failure for those 263 million ordered procedures is:?174 million venipuncture failures.

Why has this information gone undetected, unnoticed, not gathered and not reported for all of these years? There are many explanations for this as well.

• The medical industry does not track vein access failures – individually for each discipline or as the same common problem for all three disciplines. Therefore, they don’t see the ‘174 million’ global picture.
• Each discipline, nursing, lab and x-ray, struggles with vein access, but that’s what they see it as - a ‘struggle’ - but not a problem.?(One little caveat – in 2009, one of the leading laboratory tool manufacturers in the world did a world wide survey to identify the #1 laboratory problem with blood diagnostics – vein access was unequivocally ranked the #1 problem).
• Each discipline sees THEIR vein access issue as independent and not related to the other disciplines- because the procedural mission is different.
• Hospital administrations, when approached with this issue, pass the responsibility on to their department heads – it’s not viewed as an administrative problem. And the department heads aren’t in position to make ‘’standards of care’ changes.
• Teaching institutions just ‘teach what they have always taught’ for the last 200+ years – the old methods – perpetuating the problems.
• The people who teach this skill and the people who do this skill have a minimal science education. A&P taught at the allied health level is minimal compared to graduate and medical school level. And they are ‘missing’ some very important A&P information. And the PhDs who teach in some of these programs are not teaching the higher level of A&P and, more importantly, do not apply this science to the skill - because they ‘don’t do venipuncture’. And besides advanced A&P, there is physics, chemistry and math that is also missing from their education and training.
• The one medical professional who has enough science education to potentially identify this problem and solve this problem is the physician – but the primary care provider doesn’t do venipuncture – not usually. So it’s not on their radar.
• One doctor along the way tried to address this venipuncture issue. Dr. Erwin L Burke wrote an editorial for the NEJM in the June 4, 1970 issue, pg. 1336-1327, called?Care and Feeding of Veins,?where he described the plight of ‘...physicians and paramedical people who experience the necessity of multiple punctures to begin an infusion or to obtain blood samples.....’.5?Dr. Burke was on the right track, recognizing the problem of vein access failure. And he was headed in the right direction when focusing on vein dilatation. But there are several points of failure and contention with vein access besides what he focused on.

Let’s consider just a few here. This will clearly demonstrate the ‘missing’ science in the current vein access procedures and clearly demonstrate the impact that this has on the procedure. This information cannot be found in any of the current training programs or in any written descriptions in books or teaching manuals on the skill of venipuncture for blood draws, IVs or injection of contrast.

Consider these facts:

1. #1?Gray’s Anatomy tells us that the vein wall is innervated AND has a middle layer of smooth muscle.6
2. Guyton’s Physiology tells us that negative stimuli to the nerve tells that muscle to contract.7
3. PROBLEM: If you smack, slap, flick or tap that vein, in an effort to ‘raise the vein’,
4. in an effort to locate it,
5. you will cause vaso-Constriction, NOT dilatation.
6. #2?A?natural dilatation, with heat or gentle touch, of the adult vein results in an average 2 mm diameter dilatation of that vein. Article:?Van Bemmelen, Kelly and Biebea, Journal of Vascular Surgery, Volume 42, Issue 5, Pg. 957-962 (November 2005), Improvement in the visualization of superficial arm veins being evaluated for access and bypass.8?This study used heat to achieve a neuromuscular dilatation – oddly enough, the same method that Dr. Burke used in his.
7. An?artificial dilatation, from applying a tight tourniquet, causes an over distention of that vein greater than 2 mm. To our knowledge, no studies have been done to document the average size of distention with a tight tourniquet, but palpation alone will clearly demonstrate the size of the vein over distention with the use
8. of the tourniquet compared to the naturally dilated vein with the new palpation technique without the use of the tourniquet.
9. PROBLEM:?There is an anatomical limit to how much the vein wall nerves and smooth muscle can be stretched before injury occurs to those tissues and that segment of vein wall. (injury i.e. varicosity, infiltration, vein rupture).
10. #3?A <15-30 degree angle of entry of the needle through the vein wall results in a vein wall injury?4-5 times the size?than a >45 degree angle of entry causes.10
11. PROBLEM: Injury size is extended. Pain is maximized. Clotting time will be extended. Healing time will be extended. The likelihood of bruising is greater.

??????

This level of science and the application of the science to the skill are what is missing from the current training programs and teaching manuals, and explains the vein access difficulties and the vein access failures.

How did this happen and how does it continue to happen? Let’s turn to the profession’s frequently employed use of the term?‘evidence-based’?for an explanation, because

when the industry is approached today with any new information they immediately want to know?“Is this information ‘evidence based?”,?holding up that vernacular as if it were a shield protecting their old method and defending against the invasion of the new.

The definition of “evidence based” states that the evidence be based upon a ‘scientific method’ before it can be applied to clinical decision making.9?The foundation, then, of?Evidence-based medicine (EBM) or Evidence-based practice (EBP)?is?science. The evidentiary clinical outcome of that science applied to the clinical practice is the second part of the process. It’s a combination of science and evidence.?But science is the foundation.?And the original and current methods of vein access are not science-based (and their?evidence?demonstrates a 40% failure rate).

The term Evidence-based treatment (EBT) or empirically-supported treatment (EST)9?more accurately describes how the current vein access got started and why it continues to this day. Recall the beginning of this article. Phlebotomy, the first form of vein access, is 2000 years old and the originators of the current ‘tourniquet technique’ vein access were the 5th-19th?century barbers.

....Many areas of professional practice, such as medicine....,?have had periods in their pasts where practice was based on loose bodies of knowledge. Some of the knowledge was simply lore that drew upon the experiences of generations of practitioners, and much of it had no truly scientific evidence on which to justify various practices...... Wikipedia9

It is this author’s opinion that the vein access procedure of today is one of those ‘loose bodies of knowledge’; it is based upon anecdotal and empirical experience, not science.

The current vein access techniques may be old and well established (meeting some of that criteria for ‘evidence-based’), and ingrained in the brains of millions of people around the world, and written in hundreds, if not thousands, of books, but the evidence of millions of vein access failures warrants investigation.

??

Bibliography Page

1. The History of Phlebotomy, https://www.mtn.org/quack/devices/phlebo.htm.
2. History of Bloodletting by Phlebotomy, Liakat Ali Parapia, 2008-09-06 Medline Article.
3. https://www.aha.org/aha/resource-center/Statistics-and-Studies/fast-facts.html American Hospital Association, Resource Center, Fast Facts
4. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm CDC and Prevention, Fast Stats

5.?Care and Feeding of Veins, Dr. Erwin L Burke, NEJM, June 4, 1970 issue, pg. 1336-1327.

6. Gray’s Anatomy, 13th?edition, pg. 1131

7. Guyton and Hall’s, Textbook of Medical Physiology.

8.?Van Bemmelen, Kelly and Biebea, Journal of Vascular Surgery, Volume 42, Issue 5, Pg. 957-962 (November 2005) Improvement in the visualization of superficial arm veins being evaluated for access and bypass.

9. Wikipedia, definition of ‘evidence based’.

10.?The Science Behind the Skill of Vein Access, M. Gail Stotler, 2006

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Case Study:??In U.S. hospitals alone, in the year 2008,???????????????????????there were 174 million vein access failures.

?

At about the same time, the needle was discovered, and it replaced the scalpel;?and that is when?treatment bloodletting?became?diagnostic blood testing, and the IV also came to be.

The tools changed, however, the techniques did not.

After close scientific examination of the current (non-science based) techniques, you, too, will think that it is time for a (scientific) change in the skill of vein access.

Let’s start with the history of phlebotomy – the foundation of vein access and of our story.

?

The current techniques used in today’s vein access procedures are over 200 years old - reaching??all the way back to the 19th?century bloodletting (phlebotomy).

In fact, the word ‘phlebotomy’ (meaning to cut a vessel with a scalpel) was even carried forward into the 19thcentury as the term used for blood draw (with a needle).??And, that wasn’t the only part of the bloodletting procedure that was carried forward.

At the end of the 19thcentury, phlebotomy was declared quackery by the medical community and stopped.

?

?

?

????????????????????????????????????????

In 2008, there were 37.5 million hospital admissions in the U.S.1??

Every hospital patient has at least one blood draw on admission, 7 out of 10 receive an IV, and 3 out of 10 get an injection of contrast – totaling a minimum of 263 million vein access procedures in the year 2008.??And, this figure is just for hospital in-patients; it does not include any vein access procedures don as an out-patient.

Based upon the industry’s recognized vein access failure rate?

?of 40%, resulting in a multiple stick event for 4 out of every 10 patients (on every stick attempt) – that calculates out to a minimum estimate of 174 million vein access failures divided between the?IV, the?blood draw, and the?injection of contrast.

Why so many failures?

The primary explanation is that the current methods of vein access are not science based; they are anecdotally and empirically based, and rooted in the 5th-19th?centuries.

?Vein Access Technologies

a division of

The Nurses’ Station, P.C.

2 Terminal Dr., Ste.1

East Alton, Il.??62024

USA

Phone:??

618-259-7781

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

E-Mail:

mgailstotler@VATmethod

.com

?

?The Tools Have Changed, But Not the Technique . . . . .

?

?????????????????????????????????????????????

Published by?

The Nurses’ Station, P.C.

?

The History of Phlebotomy

?Phlebotomy: The Ancient Art of Bloodletting?????By Graham Ford

The practice of bloodletting seemed logical when the foundation of all medical treatment was based on the four body humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.??Health was thought to be restored by purging, starving, vomiting, or bloodletting.

The art of bloodletting was flourishing well before Hippocrates (460 B.C.).??By the middle ages, both surgeons and barbers were specializing in the bloody practice.

Barbers advertised with a red (for?

?blood) and white (for tourniquet) striped pole. The pole itself represented the stick squeezed by the patient to dilate the veins.

Bloodletting came to the U.S. on the Mayflower. The practice reached unbelievable heights in the 18th?and early 19th?centuries.??The first U.S. President, George Washington, died after being drained of nine pints of blood within 24 hours.

By the end of the 19th?century (1875-1900), phlebotomy was declared quackery.??

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 2 of 4

?

The 21cVA Technique for?

Blood Draw, the IV, and the Injection of Contrast?

?What is the 21cVA Technique for drawing blood, starting IVs, and injecting contrast?

It is Vein Access Technologies’ application of science to the skill of vein access – resulting in a transformation of this skill and of the outcomes.

The skill of vein access becomes simpler, easier, more successful, better tolerated by the patient, and a??positive impact on medical outcomes.

What kind of science are we talking about? Gray’s Anatomy and Guyton’s Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, and Math.

Here’s an example:??Gray’s Anatomy tells us that the larger superficial veins are innervated. These nerve endings are sensitive to hot, cold, touch, and pain, and they respond to these stimuli in a specific and?

?predictable manner, telling the smooth muscle media (middle layer of the vein wall) to relax or contract (vasodilate or vasoconstrict).

Can you now imagine what smacking, slapping, flicking, or tapping that nerve ending does???Those stimuli cause pain – and that results in vasoconstriction!??No wonder there is such a struggle to locate veins and to get a blood return for that blood draw or IV start.??With vasoconstriction, there is no blood in that segment of vein.?

The new 21cVA Technique utilizes the vein’s A&P to “naturally” dilate the vein?(to a self-limiting distention vs. an over-distention caused by the too tight tourniquet).

?All vessels, arteries and veins, vasoconstrict in response to pain.

?The Tools Have Been Tweaked to the Nth?Degree.??It’s Not the Tools . . .

?In 2009, one of the largest vein access tool manufacturers surveyed the world (literally) to determine what the #1 problem was in the diagnostic blood testing process – the world replied – it was the blood draw procedure.

The tools used to draw blood and start IVs have been tweaked to the nth degree.??In spite of the millions spent to improve the tools, vein access failure continues at a 40% rate.

The only thing left to examine was the?technical?component?of the vein access procedure.?

Vein Access Technologies had already done this examination 15 years ago and determined that, indeed, it was the techniques employed that were the culprits in?

?these vein access failures.??And that same examination revealed that the current technique is based upon 5th-19thcentury non-science based experiences.

Vein Access Technologies went on to study, document, and write the new description for vein access – the new science based 21st?century vein access (21cVA) technique – which puts vein access in the 95-99th?percentile range for a successful first stick attempt and all but eliminates the negative sequelae that accompany the old 19th?century technique.

Vein Access Technologies has tweaked the technique??. . .?

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 3 of 4

?

Where Tools, Technique, and?Science?Meet!

?For the first time ever, SCIENCE has been applied to this skill of vein access for blood draws (and blood donations), IVs, and the injections of contrast.

Every vein access procedure has the first two components in common:??

Part 1 – Locating a healthy vein, and

Part 2 – Accessing that vein with the needle (tools), successfully and without injury.

That’s why this new information and?

?technique applies to all of these disciplines.

SCIENCE is the difference between the old technique and the new.

Vein Access Technologies took the already well-established scientific facts, added a few new components of observation and technique, and improved the vein access procedure.

????

?VEIN ACCESS

TECHNOLOGIES

2 Terminal Drive,

Suite 1

East Alton, Il.

62024

USA

PHONE:

618-259-7781

E-MAIL:

mgailstotler@gmail.com

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 4 of 4

?

???????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????

The Science Behind the Skill of Vein Access?

?All of the science that has been applied to this vein access skill can be found in Gray’s Anatomy, Guyton and Hall’s Textbook of Medical Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, and Math Books.??But, since those books aren’t written from a vein access perspective, you won’t find them defining a particular science fact in those??terms.??They merely??give you?

?the fact – it is up to you to apply that information to the skill we are about to perform.

But, the book,?The Science Behind the Skill of Vein Access, does take these science facts and applies them to the skill – saving lots of reading and thinking time.

?

About Our Organization

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

were able to scientifically identify the problems with the old technique and scientifically provide and describe the 21cVA Technique – the technique that really works!

21cVA – 21st?century Vein Access

?

We are science educated individuals who also happen to do blood draws, injections of contrast, and IVs.

The science came first, then came the performance of the vein access skills.??It was because of this that we

?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????

Vein access is an INVASIVE procedure, and it’s time that the profession views it as such; and, therefore, it is time that the training of the individuals who perform this invasive vein access procedure be instructed at the highest level of education, no the least level; and, finally, an education based upon science, not the empirical and anecdotal that it currently is.

Vein Access Technologies –

????????????????????????????????????????Where Tools, Technique, and Science Meet!

???????????????????????????

?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Case Study:??In U.S. hospitals alone, in the year 2008,???????????????????????there were 174 million vein access failures.

?

At about the same time, the needle was discovered, and it replaced the scalpel;?and that is when?treatment bloodletting?became?diagnostic blood testing, and the IV also came to be.

The tools changed, however, the techniques did not.

After close scientific examination of the current (non-science based) techniques, you, too, will think that it is time for a (scientific) change in the skill of vein access.

Let’s start with the history of phlebotomy – the foundation of vein access and of our story.

?

The current techniques used in today’s vein access procedures are over 200 years old - reaching??all the way back to the 19th?century bloodletting (phlebotomy).

In fact, the word ‘phlebotomy’ (meaning to cut a vessel with a scalpel) was even carried forward into the 19thcentury as the term used for blood draw (with a needle).??And, that wasn’t the only part of the bloodletting procedure that was carried forward.

At the end of the 19thcentury, phlebotomy was declared quackery by the medical community and stopped.

?

?

?

????????????????????????????????????????

In 2008, there were 37.5 million hospital admissions in the U.S.1??

Every hospital patient has at least one blood draw on admission, 7 out of 10 receive an IV, and 3 out of 10 get an injection of contrast – totaling a minimum of 263 million vein access procedures in the year 2008.??And, this figure is just for hospital in-patients; it does not include any vein access procedures don as an out-patient.

Based upon the industry’s recognized vein access failure rate?

?of 40%, resulting in a multiple stick event for 4 out of every 10 patients (on every stick attempt) – that calculates out to a minimum estimate of 174 million vein access failures divided between the?IV, the?blood draw, and the?injection of contrast.

Why so many failures?

The primary explanation is that the current methods of vein access are not science based; they are anecdotally and empirically based, and rooted in the 5th-19th?centuries.

?Vein Access Technologies

a division of

The Nurses’ Station, P.C.

2 Terminal Dr., Ste.1

East Alton, Il.??62024

USA

Phone:??

618-259-7781

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

E-Mail:

mgailstotler@VATmethod

.com

?

?The Tools Have Changed, But Not the Technique . . . . .

?

?????????????????????????????????????????????

Published by?

The Nurses’ Station, P.C.

?

The History of Phlebotomy

?Phlebotomy: The Ancient Art of Bloodletting?????By Graham Ford

The practice of bloodletting seemed logical when the foundation of all medical treatment was based on the four body humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.??Health was thought to be restored by purging, starving, vomiting, or bloodletting.

The art of bloodletting was flourishing well before Hippocrates (460 B.C.).??By the middle ages, both surgeons and barbers were specializing in the bloody practice.

Barbers advertised with a red (for?

?blood) and white (for tourniquet) striped pole. The pole itself represented the stick squeezed by the patient to dilate the veins.

Bloodletting came to the U.S. on the Mayflower. The practice reached unbelievable heights in the 18th?and early 19th?centuries.??The first U.S. President, George Washington, died after being drained of nine pints of blood within 24 hours.

By the end of the 19th?century (1875-1900), phlebotomy was declared quackery.??

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 2 of 4

?

The 21cVA Technique for?

Blood Draw, the IV, and the Injection of Contrast?

?What is the 21cVA Technique for drawing blood, starting IVs, and injecting contrast?

It is Vein Access Technologies’ application of science to the skill of vein access – resulting in a transformation of this skill and of the outcomes.

The skill of vein access becomes simpler, easier, more successful, better tolerated by the patient, and a??positive impact on medical outcomes.

What kind of science are we talking about? Gray’s Anatomy and Guyton’s Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, and Math.

Here’s an example:??Gray’s Anatomy tells us that the larger superficial veins are innervated. These nerve endings are sensitive to hot, cold, touch, and pain, and they respond to these stimuli in a specific and?

?predictable manner, telling the smooth muscle media (middle layer of the vein wall) to relax or contract (vasodilate or vasoconstrict).

Can you now imagine what smacking, slapping, flicking, or tapping that nerve ending does???Those stimuli cause pain – and that results in vasoconstriction!??No wonder there is such a struggle to locate veins and to get a blood return for that blood draw or IV start.??With vasoconstriction, there is no blood in that segment of vein.?

The new 21cVA Technique utilizes the vein’s A&P to “naturally” dilate the vein?(to a self-limiting distention vs. an over-distention caused by the too tight tourniquet).

?All vessels, arteries and veins, vasoconstrict in response to pain.

?The Tools Have Been Tweaked to the Nth?Degree.??It’s Not the Tools . . .

?In 2009, one of the largest vein access tool manufacturers surveyed the world (literally) to determine what the #1 problem was in the diagnostic blood testing process – the world replied – it was the blood draw procedure.

The tools used to draw blood and start IVs have been tweaked to the nth degree.??In spite of the millions spent to improve the tools, vein access failure continues at a 40% rate.

The only thing left to examine was the?technical?component?of the vein access procedure.?

Vein Access Technologies had already done this examination 15 years ago and determined that, indeed, it was the techniques employed that were the culprits in?

?these vein access failures.??And that same examination revealed that the current technique is based upon 5th-19thcentury non-science based experiences.

Vein Access Technologies went on to study, document, and write the new description for vein access – the new science based 21st?century vein access (21cVA) technique – which puts vein access in the 95-99th?percentile range for a successful first stick attempt and all but eliminates the negative sequelae that accompany the old 19th?century technique.

Vein Access Technologies has tweaked the technique??. . .?

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 3 of 4

?

Where Tools, Technique, and?Science?Meet!

?For the first time ever, SCIENCE has been applied to this skill of vein access for blood draws (and blood donations), IVs, and the injections of contrast.

Every vein access procedure has the first two components in common:??

Part 1 – Locating a healthy vein, and

Part 2 – Accessing that vein with the needle (tools), successfully and without injury.

That’s why this new information and?

?technique applies to all of these disciplines.

SCIENCE is the difference between the old technique and the new.

Vein Access Technologies took the already well-established scientific facts, added a few new components of observation and technique, and improved the vein access procedure.

????

?VEIN ACCESS

TECHNOLOGIES

2 Terminal Drive,

Suite 1

East Alton, Il.

62024

USA

PHONE:

618-259-7781

E-MAIL:

mgailstotler@gmail.com

?

?????????????????????????????????????Vein Access Technologies????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Page 4 of 4

?

???????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????

The Science Behind the Skill of Vein Access?

?All of the science that has been applied to this vein access skill can be found in Gray’s Anatomy, Guyton and Hall’s Textbook of Medical Physiology, Physics, Chemistry, and Math Books.??But, since those books aren’t written from a vein access perspective, you won’t find them defining a particular science fact in those??terms.??They merely??give you?

?the fact – it is up to you to apply that information to the skill we are about to perform.

But, the book,?The Science Behind the Skill of Vein Access, does take these science facts and applies them to the skill – saving lots of reading and thinking time.

?

About Our Organization

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

were able to scientifically identify the problems with the old technique and scientifically provide and describe the 21cVA Technique – the technique that really works!

21cVA – 21st?century Vein Access

?

We are science educated individuals who also happen to do blood draws, injections of contrast, and IVs.

The science came first, then came the performance of the vein access skills.??It was because of this that we

?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????

Vein access is an INVASIVE procedure, and it’s time that the profession views it as such; and, therefore, it is time that the training of the individuals who perform this invasive vein access procedure be instructed at the highest level of education, no the least level; and, finally, an education based upon science, not the empirical and anecdotal that it currently is.

Vein Access Technologies –

????????????????????????????????????????Where Tools, Technique, and Science Meet!

???????????????????????????

?