Evan M Davis1, Sarah Feinsmith2, Ashley E Amick3, Jordan Sell4, Valerie McDonald2, Paul Trinquero5, Arthur Moore5, Victor Gappmaier5, Katharine Colton5, Andrew Cunningham5, William Ford5, Joseph Feinglass6, Jeffrey H Barsuk7. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: edavis@epmg.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: aamick@uw.edu. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: jordan.sell@northwestern.edu. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: j-feinglass@northwestern.edu. 7. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: Jeff.Barsuk@nm.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is a common problem in Emergency Departments (EDs), yet the prevalence and clinical impact of this condition is poorly understood. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter (USGPIV) insertion is a successful modality for obtaining intravenous (IV) access in patients with DIVA. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the prevalence of DIVA, explore how DIVA affects delivery of care, and determine if nurse insertion of USGPIV improves care delays among patients with DIVA. METHODS: We retrospectively queried the electronic medical record for all ED patients who had a peripheral IV (PIV) inserted at a tertiary academic medical center from 2015 to 2017. We categorized patients as having DIVA if they required ≥3 PIV attempts or an USGPIV. We compared metrics for care delivery including time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED length of stay (LOS) between patients with and without DIVA. We also compared these metrics in patients with DIVA with a physician-inserted USGPIV versus those with a nurse-inserted USGPIV. RESULTS: A total of 147,260 patients were evaluated during the study period. Of these, 13,192 (8.9%) met criteria for DIVA. Patients with DIVA encountered statistically significant delays in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients without DIVA (all p < 0.001). Patients with nurse-inserted USGPIVs also had statistically significant improvements in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients with physician-inserted USGPIVs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DIVA affects many ED patients and leads to delays in PIV access-related care. Nurse insertion of USGPIVs improves care in patients with DIVA.
BACKGROUND: Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is a common problem in Emergency Departments (EDs), yet the prevalence and clinical impact of this condition is poorly understood. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter (USGPIV) insertion is a successful modality for obtaining intravenous (IV) access in patients with DIVA. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the prevalence of DIVA, explore how DIVA affects delivery of care, and determine if nurse insertion of USGPIV improves care delays among patients with DIVA. METHODS: We retrospectively queried the electronic medical record for all ED patients who had a peripheral IV (PIV) inserted at a tertiary academic medical center from 2015 to 2017. We categorized patients as having DIVA if they required ≥3 PIV attempts or an USGPIV. We compared metrics for care delivery including time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED length of stay (LOS) between patients with and without DIVA. We also compared these metrics in patients with DIVA with a physician-inserted USGPIV versus those with a nurse-inserted USGPIV. RESULTS: A total of 147,260 patients were evaluated during the study period. Of these, 13,192 (8.9%) met criteria for DIVA. Patients with DIVA encountered statistically significant delays in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients without DIVA (all p < 0.001). Patients with nurse-inserted USGPIVs also had statistically significant improvements in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients with physician-inserted USGPIVs (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DIVA affects many ED patients and leads to delays in PIV access-related care. Nurse insertion of USGPIVs improves care in patients with DIVA.
Authors: Christopher M Fung; Douglas R Stayer; Jason J Terrasi; Prasad R Shankar; James A Cranford; Michael T Cover; Ryan V Tucker; Robert D Huang; Nik Theyyunni Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.093