Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify the utilisation of vascular access devices in Queensland public hospitals and their associated cost. Methods: Devices were broadly classified into peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters and arterial lines. The number of catheters used was obtained from a central procurement department at Queensland Health and validated using Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims and/or hospital data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the same period. Resources consumed included equipment and staff time required to insert and remove catheters. Equipment costs were valued using negotiated hospital prices, and staff time was valued at the fixed industrial award wages in Australia or relevant MBS fees. Device maintenance costs (e.g. dressings) and costs of treating complications were excluded. Results: Approximately 2.75 million vascular access devices were used in public hospitals in Queensland in 2016, at a total cost of A$59.14 million. This comprised a total equipment cost of around A$10.17 million and a total labour cost of A$48.85 million Conclusion: Vascular access is an important component of healthcare expenditure. The present study is the first to characterise and cost vascular access devices in Queensland. Further research is needed on the costs of maintaining device function and of treating complications associated with vascular access. What is known about the topic?: The cost of vascular access in Australia has previously been estimated from modelling, using various assumptions, or based on device utilisation in other countries. What does this paper add?: For the first time, device utilisation for vascular access in Queensland has been quantified and costed. Results were obtained from reliable sources and validated against other databases. What are the implications for practitioners?: Practitioners and managers may now provide accurate estimates about the cost of catheter failure, a potentially preventable problem that affects up to 50% of all catheters placed. Attaching costs to such failure may also stimulate research into how to reduce the problem. [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]

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]