Explore the vast range of titles available.

Peripheral intravascular cannula/catheter (PIVC) insertion is a common invasive procedure, but PIVC failure before the end of therapy is unacceptably high. As PIVC failure disrupts treatment and reinsertion can be distressing for the patient, prevention of PIVC failure is an important patient outcome. Consumer participation in PIVC care to prevent failure is an untapped resource. This study aimed to understand consumers' PIVC experience; establish aspects of PIVC insertion and care relevant to them; and to compare experiences of adult consumers to adult carers of a child. An international, web-based, cross-sectional survey was distributed via social media inviting adult consumers and adult carers of a child under 18 years who had experienced having a PIVC in the last five years (one survey each for adults and adult carers) to complete a 10-item survey. As such, sampling bias is a limitation and results should be carefully considered in light of this. There were 712 respondents from 25 countries, mainly female (87.1%) and adults (80%). A little over 50% of adults described insertion as moderately painful or worse, with level of insertion difficulty (0-10 scale) identified as moderate (median 4, IQR 1, 7). Adult carers reported significantly more pain during insertion and insertion difficulty (both p < 0.001). Rates of first insertion attempt failure were higher in children compared with adults (89/139 [64%] vs 221/554 [40%]; p < 0.001), and 23% of children required ≥ 4 attempts, compared with 9% of adults (p < 0.0001). Three themes from open-ended question emerged: Significance of safe and consistent PIVC care; Importance of staff training and competence; and Value of communication. The PIVC experience can be painful, stressful and frustrating for consumers. Priorities for clinicians and policy makers should include use of pain relief as standard practice to reduce the pain associated with PIVC insertion and developing strategies to increase first PIVC insertion attempt success particularly for children and older consumers.

Randomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for central venous access devices, however, high complication rates remain. Scoping reviews map the available evidence and demonstrate evidence deficiencies to focus ongoing research priorities. A scoping review (January 2006-December 2015) of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve central venous access device outcomes; including peripherally inserted central catheters, non-tunneled, tunneled and totally implanted venous access catheters. MeSH terms were used to undertake a systematic search with data extracted by two independent researchers, using a standardized data extraction form. In total, 178 trials were included (78 non-tunneled [44%]; 40 peripherally inserted central catheters [22%]; 20 totally implanted [11%]; 12 tunneled [6%]; 6 non-specified [3%]; and 22 combined device trials [12%]). There were 119 trials (68%) involving adult participants only, with 18 (9%) pediatric and 20 (11%) neonatal trials. Insertion-related themes existed in 38% of trials (67 RCTs), 35 RCTs (20%) related to post-insertion patency, with fewer trials on infection prevention (15 RCTs, 8%), education (14RCTs, 8%), and dressing and securement (12 RCTs, 7%). There were 46 different study outcomes reported, with the most common being infection outcomes (161 outcomes; 37%), with divergent definitions used for catheter-related bloodstream and other infections. More high quality randomized trials across central venous access device management are necessary, especially in dressing and securement and patency. These can be encouraged by having more studies with multidisciplinary team involvement and consumer engagement. Additionally, there were extensive gaps within population sub-groups, particularly in tunneled devices, and in pediatrics and neonates. Finally, outcome definitions need to be unified for results to be meaningful and comparable across studies.

PurposeTo identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure among patients requiring intravenous treatment for oncology and haematology conditions.MethodsA single-centre prospective cohort study was conducted between October 2017 and February 2019. Adult in-patients requiring a PIV for therapy were prospectively recruited from two cancer units at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was a composite of complications leading to PIV failure (local and bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration/extravasation; leakage; dislodgement; and/or phlebitis). Secondary outcomes were (i) PIV dwell time; (ii) insertion and (iii) failure of a CVAD; (iv) adverse events; (v) length of hospital stay. Outcomes were investigated using Bayesian multivariable linear regression modelling and survival analysis.ResultsOf 200 participants, 396 PIVs were included. PIV failure incidence was 34.9%; the most common failure type was occlusion/infiltration (n = 74, 18.7%), then dislodgement (n = 33, 8.3%), and phlebitis (n = 30, 7.6%). While several patient and treatment risk factors were significant in univariable modelling, in the final multivariable model, only the use of non-sterile tape (external to the primary dressing) was significantly associated with decreased PIV dislodgement (hazard ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.48; p = 0.008).ConclusionPIV failure rates among patients receiving cancer treatment are high, the sequelae of which may include delayed treatment and infection. Larger studies on risk factors and interventions to prevent PIV failure in this population are needed; however, the use of secondary securements (such as non-sterile tape) to provide further securement to the primary PIV dressing is particularly important.Trial registrationStudy methods were registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 27th March 2017 (ACTRN12617000438358); https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372191&isReview=true

Summary Background The millions of peripheral intravenous catheters used each year are recommended for 72–96 h replacement in adults. This routine replacement increases health-care costs and staff workload and requires patients to undergo repeated invasive procedures. The effectiveness of the practice is not well established. Our hypothesis was that clinically indicated catheter replacement is of equal benefit to routine replacement. Methods This multicentre, randomised, non-blinded equivalence trial recruited adults (≥18 years) with an intravenous catheter of expected use longer than 4 days from three hospitals in Queensland, Australia, between May 20, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. Computer-generated random assignment (1:1 ratio, no blocking, stratified by hospital, concealed before allocation) was to clinically indicated replacement, or third daily routine replacement. Patients, clinical staff, and research nurses could not be masked after treatment allocation because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was phlebitis during catheterisation or within 48 h after removal. The equivalence margin was set at 3%. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were catheter-related bloodstream and local infections, all bloodstream infections, catheter tip colonisation, infusion failure, catheter numbers used, therapy duration, mortality, and costs. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000445370. Findings All 3283 patients randomised (5907 catheters) were included in our analysis (1593 clinically indicated; 1690 routine replacement). Mean dwell time for catheters in situ on day 3 was 99 h (SD 54) when replaced as clinically indicated and 70 h (13) when routinely replaced. Phlebitis occurred in 114 of 1593 (7%) patients in the clinically indicated group and in 114 of 1690 (7%) patients in the routine replacement group, an absolute risk difference of 0·41% (95% CI −1·33 to 2·15%), which was within the prespecified 3% equivalence margin. No serious adverse events related to study interventions occurred. Interpretation Peripheral intravenous catheters can be removed as clinically indicated; this policy will avoid millions of catheter insertions, associated discomfort, and substantial costs in both equipment and staff workload. Ongoing close monitoring should continue with timely treatment cessation and prompt removal for complications. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US). Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies. In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) 'Escalation' is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward-'measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use. DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation.

ObjectiveTo describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making.Design and settingI-DECIDED is an eight-step tool derived from international vascular access guidelines into a structured mnemonic for device assessment and decision-making. The clinimetric evaluation process was conducted in three distinct phases.MethodsInitial face validity was confirmed with a vascular access working group. Next, content validity testing was conducted via online survey with vascular access experts and clinicians from Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada. Finally, inter-rater reliability was conducted between 34 pairs of assessors for a total of 68 peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) assessments. Assessments were timed to ensure feasibility, and the second rater was blinded to the first’s findings. Content validity index (CVI), mean item-level CVI (I-CVI), internal consistency, mean proportion of agreement, observed and expected inter-rater agreements, and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappas (PABAK) were calculated. Ethics approvals were obtained from university and hospital ethics committees.ResultsThe I-DECIDED tool demonstrated strong content validity among international vascular access experts (n=7; mean I-CVI=0.91; mean proportion of agreement=0.91) and clinicians (n=11; mean I-CVI=0.93; mean proportion of agreement=0.94), and high inter-rater reliability in seven adult medical-surgical wards of three Australian hospitals. Overall, inter-rater reliability was 87.13%, with PABAK for each principle ranging from 0.5882 (‘patient education’) to 1.0000 (‘document the decision’). Time to complete assessments averaged 2 min, and nurse-reported acceptability was high.ConclusionThis is the first comprehensive, evidence-based, valid and reliable PIVC assessment and decision tool. We recommend studies to evaluate the outcome of implementing this tool in clinical practice.Trial registration number12617000067370

Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous medical devices, crucial to providing essential fluids and drugs. However, post-insertion PIVC failure occurs frequently, likely due to inconsistent maintenance practice such as flushing. The aim of this implementation study was to evaluate the impact a multifaceted intervention centred on short PIVC maintenance had on patient outcomes. Methods This single-centre, incomplete, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial with an implementation period was undertaken at a quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were from general medical and surgical wards, aged ≥ 18 years, and requiring a PIVC for > 24 h. Wards were the unit of randomisation and allocation was concealed until the time of crossover to the implementation phase. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked but infections were adjudicated by a physician masked to allocation. Practice during the control period was standard care (variable practice with manually prepared flushes of 0.9% sodium chloride). The intervention group received education reinforcing practice guidelines (including administration with manufacturer-prepared pre-filled flush syringes). The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of occlusion, infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, and primary bloodstream or local infection). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results Between July 2016 and February 2017, 619 patients from 9 clusters (wards) were enrolled (control n  = 306, intervention n  = 313), with 617 patients comprising the intention-to-treat population. PIVC failure was 91 (30%) in the control and 69 (22%) in the intervention group (risk difference − 8%, 95% CI − 14 to − 1, p  = 0.032). Total costs were lower in the intervention group. No serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred. Conclusions This study demonstrated the effectiveness of post-insertion PIVC flushing according to recommended guidelines. Evidence-based education, surveillance and products for post-insertion PIVC management are vital to improve patient outcomes. Trial registration Trial submitted for registration on 25 January 2016. Approved and retrospectively registered on 4 August 2016. Ref: ACTRN12616001035415 .

It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80% likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68% of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.17-4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.02-5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 1.15-8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95% CI = 1.58-11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician's pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80% was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95% CI = 2.06-4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- \"Does this patient need A-PIVC?\" Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician's perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80%.

IntroductionMillions of acute care hospital patients need a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) each year. However, up to half of PIVCs remain in situ when not being used, and 30%–50% of intravenous (IV) catheters develop complications or stop working before treatment is finished, requiring the insertion of a new device. Improved assessment could prompt timely removal of redundant catheters and prevent IV complications. This study aims to validate an evidence-based PIVC assessment and decision-making tool called I-DECIDED and evaluate the effect of implementing this tool into acute hospital clinical practice.Methods and analysisThe protocol outlines a prospective, multicentre, mixed-methods study using an interrupted time-series (multiple measures preintervention and postintervention) implementation at three Australian hospitals between August 2017 and July 2018. The study will examine the effectiveness of the I-DECIDED assessment and decision-making tool in clinical practice on prompting timely PIVC removal and early detection of complications. Primary outcomes are prevalence of redundant PIVCs (defined as device in situ without a clear purpose), IV complications (occlusion, dislodgement, infiltration, extravasation and phlebitis) and substandard dressings (loose, lifting, moist or soiled); device utilisation ratios; and primary bloodstream infection rates. Secondary outcomes including staff barriers and enablers to PIVC assessment and removal, patient participation, documentation of PIVC assessment and decisions taken to continue or remove the PIVC will be recorded. Using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, we will undertake staff focus groups, bedside patient interviews and PIVC assessments and chart audits. Patients aged 18 years or more with a PIVC will be eligible for inclusion.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/17/QPCH/47), Griffith University (Ref No. 2017/152) and St Vincent’s Health and Aged Care Human Research and Ethics Committee (Ref No. 17/28). Results will be published.Trial registration numberANZCTR: 12617000067370; Pre-results.

ObjectiveA systematic review on meatal cleaning prior to urinary catheterisation and post catheterisation and reduces the risk catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and bacteriuria was published in 2017, with further studies undertaken since this time. The objective of this paper is to present an updated systematic review on the effectiveness of antiseptic cleaning of the meatal area for the prevention of CAUTIs and bacteriuria in patients who receive a urinary catheter.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic databases Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Academic Search Complete were searched from 1 January 2016 and 29 February 2020.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the use of antiseptic, antibacterial or non-medicated agents for cleaning the meatal, periurethral or perineal areas before indwelling catheter insertion or intermittent catheterisation or during routine meatal care.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s data collection form for RCTs and non-RCTs. Data were extracted by one researcher and then checked for accuracy by a second researcher.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included. Some potential benefit of using antiseptics, compared with non-antiseptics for meatal cleaning to prevent bacteriuria and or CAUTI was identified (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; p=0.071). Antiseptics (chlorhexidine or povidine-iodine) may be of value for meatal cleaning on the incidence of CAUTI, compared with comparator agents (saline, soap or antimicrobial cloths) (OR=0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99; p=0.047).ConclusionThere is emerging evidence of the role of some specific antiseptics (chlorhexidine) prior to urinary catheterisation, in reducing CAUTIs, and some potential benefit to the role of antiseptics more generally in reducing bacteriuria.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015023741.