Search

Background: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. Aims: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). Findings: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001).Conclusion: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used, but failure is unacceptably common with up to 69% failing before treatment is complete. PIVC securement reduces failure, but the optimal way to achieve this is unclear. Tapes and supplementary securement products are widely used, however rigorous testing of these to reduce PIVC failure remains unexplored. Methods and analysis: In adult medical-surgical wards at a tertiary hospital, this pilot randomized controlled trial tests standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing plus nonsterile tape over the extension tubing) against two securement interventions (intervention one: standard care plus two sterile tape strips over the PIVC hub; intervention two: intervention one plus a tubular bandage). Patients >18 years of age requiring a PIVC for >24 hours are eligible. Patients with laboratoryconfirmed positive blood cultures within 24 hours of screening, known allergy to study products, current or high-risk of skin tear, or non-English speaking without interpreter are excluded. Sample size is 35 per trial arm, and central randomization is computer-generated with allocation concealed until entry. Patients and clinical staff cannot be blinded to treatment allocation. However, infection outcomes are assessed by a blinded investigator. Primary outcome is study feasibility. Secondary outcomes (PIVC failure, dwell time, skin adverse events, PIVC colonization, and cost) are compared between groups. Feasibility outcomes are reported descriptively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adult medical and surgical patients admitted to tertiary hospitals regularly have peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) inserted for their treatment. Anecdotally, patients report varying levels of pain and anxiety during the insertion procedure; however, lived experiences of patients are not well documented in the literature. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of patients’ experiences of PVC insertion. Some 10 participants were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews, from the medical and surgical wards at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Four key themes developed from the interview data: communication between the patient and the inserter; technique of device insertion; competence of the inserter; and location of the device. These themes informed practical ways that nurses might improve the patient experience, including: consultation with patients regarding device insertion preferences; siting the PVC in locations other than the antecubital fossa and hand; ensuring experienced and confident inserters are available to insert PVCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]