| Literature DB >> 28760798 |
Jodie G Hobbs1, Melissa K Ryan1, Brett Ritchie2, Janet K Sluggett3,4, Andrew J Sluggett3,5, Lucy Ralton2, Karen J Reynolds1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies comparing satisfaction with electronic and elastomeric infusion pumps are limited, and improvements in size and usability of electronic pumps have since occurred. The Comparing Home Infusion Devices (CHID) study plans to assess patient and nurse satisfaction with an elastomeric and electronic pump for delivering intravenous antibiotic treatment in the home. Secondary objectives are to determine pump-related complications and actual antibiotic dose administered, evaluate temperature variation and compare pump operating costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CHID study will be a randomised, crossover trial. A trained research nurse will recruit patients with infectious disease aged ≥18 years and prescribed ≥8 days of continuous intravenous antibiotic therapy from the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) (Adelaide, Australia). Patients will be randomised to receive treatment at home via an elastomeric (Baxter Infusor) or an electronic (ambIT Continuous) infusion pump for 4-7 days, followed by the other for a further 4-7 days. Patient satisfaction will be assessed by a 10-item survey to be completed at the end of each arm. Nurse satisfaction will be assessed by a single 24-item survey. Patient logbooks and case notes from clinic visits will be screened to identify complications. Pumps/infusion bags will be weighed to estimate the volume of solution delivered. Temperature sensors will record skin and ambient temperatures during storage and use of the pumps throughout the infusion period. Costs relating to pumps, consumables, antibiotics and servicing will be determined. Descriptive statistics will summarise study data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the RAH Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/RAH/133 R20160420, version 6.0, 5 September 2016). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The CHID study will provide key insights into patient and provider satisfaction with elastomeric and electronic infusion pumps and inform future device selection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000251325; Pre-results. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: HITH; Hospital at Home; Infusion; elastomeric; pump
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28760798 PMCID: PMC5642663 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Flow diagram of crossover study design.
Trial registration data
| Data category | Information |
| Primary registry and trial identifying number | Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( |
| Date of registration | 17 February 2017 |
| Public title | Comparing Home |
| Scientific title | A randomised crossover trial evaluating patient and nurse satisfaction of the electronic portable infusion device (ambIT Continuous) versus elastomeric delivery (Baxter Infusor) for the continuous administration of antibiotics in the home in patients with infectious disease |
| Trial acronym | CHID |
| Health conditions | Any infectious disease requiring intravenous antibiotic therapy and suitable for treatment via a continuous infusion in the home setting |
| Study type | Interventional |
| Intervention code | Treatment: devices |
| Control treatment | Treatment administered via an elastomeric infusion pump |
| Key inclusion criteria | Suitable for ambulatory home antibiotic therapy as approved by infectious diseases specialist |
| Key exclusion criteria | Patient is unable or unwilling to fill out the patient questionnaire survey and or logbook |
| Recruitment state | South Australia |
| Recruitment hospital | The Royal Adelaide Hospital—Adelaide |
| Funding source 1 | Government of South Australia, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (now Department of State Development) |
| Funding source 2 | CPIE Pharmacy Services, Findon, South Australia |
| Primary sponsor | Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia |
| Other collaborator | CPIE Pharmacy Services, Findon, South Australia |
| Ethics committee | Royal Adelaide Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval No. R20160420 |
Figure 2Infusion pumps used in the Comparing Home Infusion Devices study. (A) Baxter Infusor. (B) ambIT Continuous.
Patient timeline
| In hospital | Day 1 (day of leaving hospital) | Home period 1 | Clinic visit 1 | Home period 2 | Clinic visit 2 | |
| Eligibility | x | |||||
| Informed consent | x | |||||
| Demographic data | x | |||||
| Randomisation | x | |||||
| First infusion device connected | x | |||||
| Temperature sensor applied to patient's forearm | x | |||||
| Home nursing staff visit patient | x | x | x | |||
| Patient completes logbook | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Clinical progress assessment | x | x | ||||
| Patient completes satisfaction survey | x | x | ||||
| Patient crossover to other infusion device | x | |||||
| Discharge from trial and patient handover | x |