Evan Alexandrou1,2,2,3,4, Gillian Ray-Barruel3,5, Peter J Carr3,5,6, Steven A Frost7,2,4, Sheila Inwood8, Niall Higgins3,9, Frances Lin3, Laura Alberto3, Leonard Mermel10, Claire M Rickard3,5. 1. Western Sydney University, New South Wales, Australia. E.Alexandrou@westernsydney.edu.au. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Liverpool Hospital, New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. Centre for Applied Nursing Research & Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Local Health District, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia. 5. National Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 6. The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 7. Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Royal Berkshire Hospital, Berkshire, England. 9. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 10. Rhode Island Hospital and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally. SETTING/PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study. Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared. RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication (n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards (n = 22,167, 55%). Two-thirds of all devices were placed in non-recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs (n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of iIn this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.dle PIVCs was 14% (n = 5,796). Overall, 10% (n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% (n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal (n = 8,507). Over one-third of PIVCs (n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half (n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally. SETTING/PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study. Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared. RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication (n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards (n = 22,167, 55%). Two-thirds of all devices were placed in non-recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs (n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of iIn this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.dle PIVCs was 14% (n = 5,796). Overall, 10% (n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% (n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal (n = 8,507). Over one-third of PIVCs (n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half (n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.
Authors: Emily N Larsen; Gillian Ray-Barruel; Mari Takashima; Nicole Marsh; Christopher R Friese; Vineet Chopra; Evan Alexandrou; Claire M Rickard Journal: Aust J Cancer Nurs Date: 2022-05
Authors: Niccolò Buetti; Mohamed Abbas; Didier Pittet; Marlieke E A de Kraker; Daniel Teixeira; Marie-Noëlle Chraiti; Valérie Sauvan; Julien Sauser; Stephan Harbarth; Walter Zingg Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 44.409
Authors: Nanna L Andersen; Rune O Jensen; Stefan Posth; Christian B Laursen; Rasmus Jørgensen; Ole Graumann Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Rigoberto Vazquez; Rishabh Tennankore; Ariella Shikanov; Leonard A Mermel; Brian Love; Michael L Burns Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-01