Search

Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine patient perceptions regarding vascular access quality measurement. Methods. A web-based, cross-sectional survey was performed using a convenience sample of healthcare consumers with vascular access experience, recruited from September 2019 to June 2020. Survey respondents were asked to rate the perceived importance of 50 vascular access data items, including patient demographics, clinical and device characteristics, and insertion, management and complication data. Data were ranked using a five-point Likert scale (1, least important; 5, most important), and are reported as median values. Respondents proposed additional items and explored broader perspectives using free-text responses, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results. In all, 68 consumers completed the survey. Participants were primarily female (82%), aged 40-49 years (29%) and living in Australia or New Zealand (84%). All respondents indicated that measuring the quality of vascular access care was important. Of the 50 items, 37 (74%) were perceived as 'most important' (median score 5), with measures of quality (i.e. outcomes and complications) rated highly (e.g. thrombosis and primary blood stream infection). Participants proposed 16 additional items. 'Gender' received the lowest perceived importance score (median score 3). Two themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of broader perspectives: (1) measurement of vascular access device complication severity and associated factors; and (2) patient experience. Conclusion. Measuring vascular access quality and safety is important to consumers. Outcome and complication measures were rated 'most important', with respondents identifying a need for increased monitoring of their overall vascular access journey through the health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To examine the use, management, documentation and complications for intravascular devices in cardiac, medical and surgical inpatients. Methods. A point prevalence survey was undertaken in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Results. Of the 327 patients assessed, 192 (58.7%) had one or more devices in situ. Of the 220 devices, 190 (86.4%) were peripheral venous catheters, 25 (11.4%) were peripherally inserted central catheters and five (2.3%) were central venous catheters. Sixty-two of 220 devices (28.2%) were in situ without a clear purpose, whereas 54 (24.7%) had one or more complications, such as redness, pain, tracking, oedema or oozing. There was no documentation on the daily patient care record to indicate that a site assessment had occurred within the past 8 h for 25% of the devices in situ. Conclusions. The present study identified several problems and highlighted areas for improvement in the management and documentation for intravascular devices. Ongoing education, promoting good clinical practice and reauditing, can be applied to improve the management of devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]