BACKGROUND: Indwelling urinary and vascular catheters are valuable devices in patient care, but prolonged or unnecessary use increases the risk of infectious and noninfectious catheter harms. METHODS: To understand persistent barriers to detecting and removing unnecessary catheters, researchers conducted a multimethod qualitative study that included observations and in-person interviews with clinicians working on a progressive care unit of a large hospital. Observations consisted of shadowing nurses during shift change and while admitting patients, and observing physicians during morning rounds. Observational data were gathered using unstructured field notes. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify main themes. RESULTS: Barriers to timely removal identified during 19 interviews with clinicians and 133 hours of field observations included physicians not routinely reviewing catheter necessity during rounds, catheters going unnoticed or hidden under clothing, common use of "Do Not Remove" orders, and little or no discussion of catheters among clinicians. Five overall themes emerged: (1) Catheter data are hard to find, not accurate, or not available; (2) Catheter removal is not a priority; (3) Confusion exists about who has authority to remove catheters; (4) There is a lack of agreement on, and awareness of, standard protocols and indications for removal; and (5) Communication barriers among clinicians create challenges. CONCLUSION: To address barriers and facilitate detection and timely removal, clinicians need ready access to accurate catheter data, more clearly delineated clinician roles for prompting removal, effective tools to facilitate discussions about catheter use, and standardized catheter removal protocols.
BACKGROUND: Indwelling urinary and vascular catheters are valuable devices in patient care, but prolonged or unnecessary use increases the risk of infectious and noninfectious catheter harms. METHODS: To understand persistent barriers to detecting and removing unnecessary catheters, researchers conducted a multimethod qualitative study that included observations and in-person interviews with clinicians working on a progressive care unit of a large hospital. Observations consisted of shadowing nurses during shift change and while admitting patients, and observing physicians during morning rounds. Observational data were gathered using unstructured field notes. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify main themes. RESULTS: Barriers to timely removal identified during 19 interviews with clinicians and 133 hours of field observations included physicians not routinely reviewing catheter necessity during rounds, catheters going unnoticed or hidden under clothing, common use of "Do Not Remove" orders, and little or no discussion of catheters among clinicians. Five overall themes emerged: (1) Catheter data are hard to find, not accurate, or not available; (2) Catheter removal is not a priority; (3) Confusion exists about who has authority to remove catheters; (4) There is a lack of agreement on, and awareness of, standard protocols and indications for removal; and (5) Communication barriers among clinicians create challenges. CONCLUSION: To address barriers and facilitate detection and timely removal, clinicians need ready access to accurate catheter data, more clearly delineated clinician roles for prompting removal, effective tools to facilitate discussions about catheter use, and standardized catheter removal protocols.
Authors: Melinda Sawyer; Kristina Weeks; Christine A Goeschel; David A Thompson; Sean M Berenholtz; Jill A Marsteller; Lisa H Lubomski; Sara E Cosgrove; Bradford D Winters; David J Murphy; Laura C Bauer; Jordan Duval-Arnould; Julius C Pham; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jean-Jacques Parienti; Nicolas Mongardon; Bruno Mégarbane; Jean-Paul Mira; Pierre Kalfon; Antoine Gros; Sophie Marqué; Marie Thuong; Véronique Pottier; Michel Ramakers; Benoît Savary; Amélie Seguin; Xavier Valette; Nicolas Terzi; Bertrand Sauneuf; Vincent Cattoir; Leonard A Mermel; Damien du Cheyron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Milisa Manojlovich; Jessica M Ameling; Jane Forman; Samantha Judkins; Martha Quinn; Jennifer Meddings Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: S Saint; J Wiese; J K Amory; M L Bernstein; U D Patel; J K Zemencuk; S J Bernstein; B A Lipsky; T P Hofer Journal: Am J Med Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Margaret A Dudeck; Jonathan R Edwards; Katherine Allen-Bridson; Cindy Gross; Paul J Malpiedi; Kelly D Peterson; Daniel A Pollock; Lindsey M Weiner; Dawn M Sievert Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: David Paje; Anna Conlon; Scott Kaatz; Lakshmi Swaminathan; Tanya Boldenow; Steven J Bernstein; Scott A Flanders; Vineet Chopra Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Vineet Chopra; Scott A Flanders; Sanjay Saint; Scott C Woller; Naomi P O'Grady; Nasia Safdar; Scott O Trerotola; Rajiv Saran; Nancy Moureau; Stephen Wiseman; Mauro Pittiruti; Elie A Akl; Agnes Y Lee; Anthony Courey; Lakshmi Swaminathan; Jack LeDonne; Carol Becker; Sarah L Krein; Steven J Bernstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sanjay Saint; Barbara W Trautner; Karen E Fowler; John Colozzi; David Ratz; Erica Lescinskas; John M Hollingsworth; Sarah L Krein Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873