Katarina Göransson1, Ulrika Förberg2, Eva Johansson3, Maria Unbeck4. 1. Emergency Medicine Function, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: katarina.el.goransson@sll.se. 2. Children's and Women's Health Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Women and Child Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, and Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many instruments for measurement of peripheral venous catheter (PVC)-related phlebitis are available, but no consensus exists on their applicability in clinical practice. This absence of consensus affects the ability to identify and compare proportions of PVCs causing phlebitis within and across hospitals as the range varies between 2% and 62% in previous studies. We hypothesised that the instruments' ability to identify phlebitis varies. The aim of this study is to illustrate the complexity of application of phlebitis instruments to a clinical dataset. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we applied 17 instruments for phlebitis identification (divided into three groups [instruments using definitions, severity rating systems, and scoring systems]) to PVCs in adult patients admitted to 12 inpatient units at Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden. We calculated the proportion of PVCs causing phlebitis on the basis of each instrument's minimum criterion for phlebitis. We also analysed each instrument's face validity. We compared proportions using the Z test. FINDINGS: On the basis of data collected between Feb 2, 2009, and Feb 20, 2009, May 18, 2009, and June 5, 2009, and Feb 8, 2010, and Feb 26, 2010, we applied 17 instruments for phlebitis identification (eight instruments using definitions, seven severity rating systems, and two scoring systems) to 1175 observed PVCs in 1032 patients. The highest number of PVCs causing phlebitis generated by definitions was 137 (11·7%), by severity rating systems was 395 (33·6%), and by scoring systems was 363 (30·9%). The proportion generated by instruments using definitions was significantly different to that of both the severity rating (difference 21·9% [95% CI 18·6-25·2]; p<0·0001) and scoring (19·2% [12·0-26·4]; p<0·0001) systems. Proportions did not differ significantly between severity rating systems and scoring system (difference 2·7% [95% CI -1·1 to 6·6]; p=0·16). The proportion within instruments ranged from less than 1% to 28%. We identified face validity issues, such as use of indistinct or complex measurements and inconsistent measurements or definitions. INTERPRETATION: Our study highlights several concerns regarding instruments to measure phlebitis published in the scientific community. From a work environment and patient safety perspective, clinical staff engaged in PVC management should be aware of the absence of adequately validated instruments for phlebitis assessment. We suggest that researchers within the field of PVC come together in a joint research programme aiming to develop valid and reliable methods that accurately identify PVC-related adverse events that also includes decision support for clinical staff concerning clinical indications for PVC removal. Such actions could lead to a revised view on what is best practice for management of PVCs. FUNDING: None.
BACKGROUND: Many instruments for measurement of peripheral venous catheter (PVC)-related phlebitis are available, but no consensus exists on their applicability in clinical practice. This absence of consensus affects the ability to identify and compare proportions of PVCs causing phlebitis within and across hospitals as the range varies between 2% and 62% in previous studies. We hypothesised that the instruments' ability to identify phlebitis varies. The aim of this study is to illustrate the complexity of application of phlebitis instruments to a clinical dataset. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we applied 17 instruments for phlebitis identification (divided into three groups [instruments using definitions, severity rating systems, and scoring systems]) to PVCs in adult patients admitted to 12 inpatient units at Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden. We calculated the proportion of PVCs causing phlebitis on the basis of each instrument's minimum criterion for phlebitis. We also analysed each instrument's face validity. We compared proportions using the Z test. FINDINGS: On the basis of data collected between Feb 2, 2009, and Feb 20, 2009, May 18, 2009, and June 5, 2009, and Feb 8, 2010, and Feb 26, 2010, we applied 17 instruments for phlebitis identification (eight instruments using definitions, seven severity rating systems, and two scoring systems) to 1175 observed PVCs in 1032 patients. The highest number of PVCs causing phlebitis generated by definitions was 137 (11·7%), by severity rating systems was 395 (33·6%), and by scoring systems was 363 (30·9%). The proportion generated by instruments using definitions was significantly different to that of both the severity rating (difference 21·9% [95% CI 18·6-25·2]; p<0·0001) and scoring (19·2% [12·0-26·4]; p<0·0001) systems. Proportions did not differ significantly between severity rating systems and scoring system (difference 2·7% [95% CI -1·1 to 6·6]; p=0·16). The proportion within instruments ranged from less than 1% to 28%. We identified face validity issues, such as use of indistinct or complex measurements and inconsistent measurements or definitions. INTERPRETATION: Our study highlights several concerns regarding instruments to measure phlebitis published in the scientific community. From a work environment and patient safety perspective, clinical staff engaged in PVC management should be aware of the absence of adequately validated instruments for phlebitis assessment. We suggest that researchers within the field of PVC come together in a joint research programme aiming to develop valid and reliable methods that accurately identify PVC-related adverse events that also includes decision support for clinical staff concerning clinical indications for PVC removal. Such actions could lead to a revised view on what is best practice for management of PVCs. FUNDING: None.