MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?
Journal Article

Prospective observational study of peripheral intravenous cannula utilisation and frequency of intravenous fluid delivery in the emergency department—Convenience or necessity?

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Peripheral Intravenous Cannulas (PIVCs) are frequently utilised in the Emergency Department (ED) for delivery of medication and phlebotomy. They are associated with complications and have an associated cost to departmental resources. A growing body of international research suggests many of the PIVCs inserted in the ED are unnecessary. The objective of this study was to determine the rates of PIVC insertion and use. This was a prospective observational study conducted in one UK ED and one Italian ED. Adult ED patients with non-immediate triage categories were included over a period of three weeks in the UK ED in August 2016 and two weeks in the Italian ED in March and August 2017. Episodes of PIVC insertion and data on PIVC utilisation in adults were recorded. PIVC use was classified as necessary, unnecessary or unused. The proportion of unnecessary and unused PIVCs was calculated. PIVCs were defined as unnecessary if they were either used for phlebotomy only, or solely for IV fluids in patients that could have potentially been hydrated orally (determined against a priori defined criteria). PIVC classified as unused were not used for any purpose. A total of 1,618 patients were included amongst which 977 PIVCs were inserted. Of the 977 PIVCs, 413 (42%) were necessary, 536 (55%) were unnecessary, and 28 (3%) were unused. Of the unnecessary PIVCs, 473 (48%) were used solely for phlebotomy and 63 (6%) were used for IV fluids in patients that could drink. More than half of PIVCs placed in the ED were unnecessary in this study. This suggests that clinical decision making about the benefits and risks of PIVC insertion is not being performed on an individual basis.