Search

Background: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. Aim: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long‐term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. Design: Multi‐site, parallel, multi‐method, prospective cohort study. Methods: A multi‐site, multi‐method study was carried out in 2020–2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. Results: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow‐up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5–10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. Conclusion: Several recommendations were made to improve the end‐user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. Impact: Patient‐/parent‐reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record‐keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. Reporting Method: Not applicable. Patient Contribution: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To test the feasibility of a study protocol that compared the efficacy of neutral‐ and negative‐pressure needleless connectors (NCs). Design: A single‐centre, parallel‐group, pilot randomised control trial. Methods: Our study compared neutral‐(intervention) and negative‐pressure (control) NCs among adult patients in an Australian hospital. The primary feasibility outcome was measured against predetermined criteria (e.g. eligibility, attrition). The primary efficacy outcome was all‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, analysed as time‐to‐event data. Results: In total, 201 (100 control; 101 intervention) participants were enrolled between March 2020 and September 2020. All feasibility criteria were met except eligibility, which was lower (78%) than the 90% criterion. All‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure was significantly higher in the intervention group (39%) compared to control (19%). Conclusion: With minor modifications to participant screening for eligibility, this randomised control trial is feasible for a large multicentre randomised control trial. The neutral NC was associated with an increased risk of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: There are several NC designs available, often identified by their mechanism of pressure (positive, negative and neutral). However, NCs can contribute to peripheral intravenous catheter failure. This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare neutral and negative NC designs. Negative pressure NCs had lower PIVC failure compared to neutral NCs, however the results might not be generalisable to other brands or treatment settings. Further high‐quality research is needed to explore NC design. Reporting Method: Study methods and results reported in adherence to the CONSORT Statement. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to critically evaluate implementation frameworks, strategies and/or outcomes used to optimise peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care and/or promote guideline adherence. Background: Although a considerable volume of research has investigated the effectiveness of PIVC interventions and treatments to promote performance and prevent harm, how to best implement this evidence into dynamic clinical settings and populations is not well understood. Implementation science is central to translating evidence‐based knowledge to the bedside; however, there is a gap in identifying the best implementation framework, strategies and/or outcomes to optimise PIVC care and/or guideline adherence. Design: A systematic review. Method: The review was conducted using innovative automation tools. Five databases and clinical trial registries were searched on 14 October 2021. Qualitative and quantitative PIVC intervention studies reporting implementation strategies were included in the review. Data were extracted independently by experienced researchers in pairs. The Mixed Method Appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. The systematic review was reported following the PRISMA checklist. Results: Of 2189 references identified, 27 studies were included in the review. Implementation frameworks were used in 30% (n = 8) of studies, with most used during the preparation (n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase (n = 7, 26%) and then evaluation phase (n = 4, 15%). Multifaceted strategies were commonly adopted (n = 24, 89%) to promote PIVC care or study interventions which were clinician (n = 25, 93%) and patient‐targeted (n = 15, 56%). The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (n = 13, 48%) and adoption (n = 6, 22%). Most studies were scored as low quality (n = 18, 67%). Conclusion: We call for researchers and clinicians to work together and use implementation science frameworks to guide study design, implementation and evaluation in future PIVC studies, to improve evidence translation and thereby improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To synthesise evidence related to medical adhesive tapes and supplementary securement products for peripheral intravenous catheters in adults, to prevent complications and device failure. Design: Integrative review informed by Whittemore and Knafl and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Data sources. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, EMBASE/MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched from 2000–21 September 2020. Review Methods. Studies enrolling hospitalised participants >16 years with peripheral intravenous catheters secured by medical adhesive tapes, or supplementary products (bandage, splint and sutureless securement device), were eligible. Quality appraisal was performed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklists. Results: Nineteen studies met criteria, including 43,683 peripheral intravenous catheters. Quality appraisal identified high or unclear risk of bias in 58% of studies. Nonsterile tape was the most common intervention tested (14 studies), alone or in multiproduct combinations. Nonsterile tape directly over insertion sites was associated with increased PIVC failure and complications. Sutureless securement devices potentially reduce failure and complications. Multiproduct combinations were very common. Practice recommendations regarding other tapes and secondary securement products are challenging, due to conflicting, or lack of, evidence. Conclusion: Tapes and secondary securement product evidence are limited, and over half of the studies are of low methodological quality. This review found nonsterile tape was associated with increased failure and complications; multiproduct dressing and securement bundles were prevalent; and significant evidence gaps exist particularly regarding bandages and splints. The results provide nurses with evidence of medical adhesive tapes and supplementary product effectiveness for peripheral intravenous catheter securement, and future research directions to reduce unacceptably high failure and complication rates. Larger rigorously conducted randomised controlled trials are needed to add to current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To explore nurses' decision‐making regarding intravenous administration set replacement for vascular access device infusions in paediatric and adult clinical settings. Background: Intravenous administration sets are routinely replaced at regular intervals in clinical practice with the goal of preventing catheter‐related bloodstream infection; however, emerging evidence is challenging traditional hang‐time durations. Nurses' perceptions and contextual factors affecting decision‐making for administration set replacement have not been assessed previously. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups with contextualism methodology and inductive analysis. Method: During November–December 2016, eight semi‐structured focus groups were conducted with 38 nurses at two metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed. Two authors independently reviewed transcripts and extracted significant statements using Braun and Clarke's 7‐step method of thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist provided a framework to report the study methods, context, findings, analysis and interpretation. Results: Five key themes emerged from the analysis: (a) infection prevention, (b) physical safety, (c) patient preference, (d) clinical knowledge and beliefs, and (e) workload. Administration set replacement can be a complex task, particularly when patients have multiple infusions and incompatible medications. Nurses drew on perceptions of patient preference, as well as previous experience, knowledge of peer experts and local policies, to aid their decisions. Conclusions: Nurses use clinical reasoning to balance patient safety and preferences with competing workplace demands when undertaking administration set replacement. Nurses rely on previous experience, hospital and medication manufacturer policies, and peer experts to guide their practice. Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses at times deviate from clinical guidelines in the interests of patient acuity, nurses' experience and workload. The findings of this study indicate nurses also balance considerations of patient preference and safety with these competing demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]