Search

Early and accurate identification of high-risk patients with peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC)-related phlebitis is vital to prevent medical device-related complications.

Background: The significance of vascular access devices for patients in the emergency department (ED) is undeniable. When it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) stand out as the most reliable sources of evidence compared with other study designs. Aim: To explore and synthesise the findings from RCTs related to vascular access devices in the ED setting. Methods: A systematic search will be conducted in electronic medical databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, CINAHL and Embase databases. All RCTs focusing on peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters and intraosseous catheters, published in English and Chinese in peer-reviewed journals within the past decade, will be included. Conclusion: This scoping review will summarise the current state of evidence for vascular access devices in the ED setting. This will identify gaps in the literature and, in turn, assist clinicians and researchers in pinpointing areas for future exploration and provide a valuable guide for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Labor is both a physiological and physical activity that requires energy expenditure by the woman. Despite this, women are often fasted in labor, with hydration requirements addressed predominantly by intravenous therapy. Little is known about how best to manage this in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor, who can be prone to lengthy labors. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine the effects of intravenous hydration regimens on nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor. Material and methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted. Databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science using the search strategy combination of associated key concepts for intravenous therapy and nulliparous laboring women. The primary outcome was excessive neonatal weight loss. Meta‐analyses for categorical outcomes included estimates of odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated; and for continuous outcomes the standardized mean difference, each with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed visually and by using the χ2 statistic and I2 with significance being set at p < 0.10. Results: A total of 1512 studies were located and following screening, three studies met the eligibility criteria. No studies reported excessive neonatal weight loss. Increased rates of intravenous therapy (250 mL/h vs. 125 mL/h) during labor were not found to reduce the overall length of labor (mean difference −0.07 h, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.13 h) or reduce cesarean sections (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45–1.23), when women were not routinely fasted. Conclusions: Our review found no significant improvements for nulliparous women who received higher intravenous fluid volumes when undergoing induction of labor and were not routinely fasted. However, data are limited, and further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Introduction: First-insertion success rates for peripheral vascular access devices (PVADs) in patients with difficult venous access (DIVA) are low, which negatively affects staff workload, patient experience, and organizational cost. There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of a peripheral vascular access device with retractable coiled tip guidewire (GW; AccuCath™, BD) on the first-insertion success rate. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of long GW-PVADs, compared with standard PVADs, reduces the risk of first-time insertion failure, in patients admitted to emergency departments (EDs). Methods and analysis: A parallel-group, two-arm, randomized controlled trial will be carried out in two Australian EDs to compare long GW-PVADs (5.8 cm length) against standard care PVADs (short or long). Patients ≥18 years of age meeting DIVA criteria will be eligible for the trial. The sample size is 203 participants for each arm. Web-based central randomization will be used to ensure allocation concealment. Neither clinicians nor patients can be blinded to treatment allocation. Primary outcome is the first-insertion success rate. Secondary outcomes include the number of insertion attempts, time to insert PVAD, all-cause failure, dwell-time, patient-reported pain, serious adverse events, complications, subsequent vascular access devices required, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and healthcare costs. Differences between the two groups will be analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. Intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by Metro South Ethics Committee (HREC/2022/QMS/82264) and Griffith University (2022/077). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: ACTRN12622000299707 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Arterial catheters (ACs) are critical for haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but are prone to complications. We investigated the incidence and risk factors of AC failure. Methods: Secondary analysis of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (ACTRN 12610000505000). Analysis included a subset of adult intensive care unit patients with an AC. The primary outcome was all-cause device failure. Secondary outcomes were catheter associated bloodstream infection (CABSI), suspected CABSI, occlusion, thrombosis, accidental removal, pain, and line fracture. Risk factors associated with AC failure were investigated using Cox proportional hazards and competing-risk models. Results: Of 664 patients, 173 (26%) experienced AC failure (incidence rate [IR] 37/1000 catheter days). Suspected CABSI was the most common failure type (11%; IR 15.3/1000 catheter days), followed by occlusion (8%; IR 11.9/1,000 catheter days), and accidental removal (4%; IR 5.5/1000 catheter days). CABSI occurred in 16 (2%) patients. All-cause failure and occlusion were reduced with ultrasound-assisted insertion (failure: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.25, 0.76; occlusion: sub-HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03, 0.43). Increased age was associated with less AC failure (60–74 years HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; 75 + years HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.64; referent 15–59 years). Females experienced more occlusion (adjusted sub-HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.49, 4.29), while patients with diabetes had less (SHR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04, 0.63). Suspected CABSI was associated with an abnormal insertion site appearance (SHR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48, 4.99). Conclusions: AC failure is common with ultrasound-guided insertion associated with lower failure rates. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12610000505000); date registered: 18 June 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are essential for successful administration of intravenous treatments. However, insertion failure and PIVC complications are common and negatively impact patients' health-outcomes and experiences. We aimed to assess whether generic (not condition-specific) quality of life and experience measures were suitable for assessing outcomes and experiences of patients with PIVCs. Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of data collected on three existing instruments within a large randomised controlled trial, conducted at two adult tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Instruments included the EuroQol Five Dimension - Five Level (EQ5D-5L), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Treatment Satisfaction – General measure (FACIT-TS-G, eight items), and the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS, 12 items). Responses were compared against two clinical PIVC outcomes of interest: all-cause failure and multiple insertion attempts. Classic descriptives were reported for ceiling and floor effects. Regression analyses examined validity (discrimination). Standardised response mean and effect size (ES) assessed responsiveness (EQ5D-5L, only). Results: In total, 685 participants completed the EQ5D-5L at insertion and 526 at removal. The FACIT-TS-G was completed by 264 and the AHPEQS by 262 participants. Two FACIT-TS-G items and one AHPEQS item demonstrated ceiling effect. Instruments overall demonstrated poor discrimination, however, all-cause PIVC failure was significantly associated with several individual items in the instruments (e.g., AHPEQS, 'unexpected physical and emotional harm'). EQ5D-5L demonstrated trivial (ES < 0.20) responsiveness. Conclusions: Initial investigation of an existing health-related quality of life measure (EQ5D-5L) and two patient-reported experience measures (FACIT-TS-G; AHPEQS) suggest they are inadequate (as a summary measure) to assess outcomes and experiences for patients with PIVCs. Reliable instruments are urgently needed to inform quality improvement and benchmark standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Aims Methods Results Conclusion Mechanical force skin injuries are common for critical care patients, especially neonates. Currently, identification and severity assessments of injuries are dependent on clinical experience and/or utilization of severity tools. Compared with adults, neonates sustain skin injuries in different anatomical locations and have decreased layers of healthy tissue (from 0.9 to 1.2 mm) creating questions around direct application of adult injury severity scales reliant on visual assessment.The aim of this scoping review (ScR) was to investigate severity scales used to report hospital acquired skin injuries for neonates.This study utilized the 2015 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews extension. PubMed, CINAHL, COCHRANE Central, Scopus, and the reference lists of included studies were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2023, that included severity scales use within neonatal population. Two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment.A systematic database search returned 1163 records. After full test review of 109 studies, 35 studies were included. A majority of studies included were cohort or action research and conducted in the United States of America. Most studies (57%, n = 20) reported skin injuries acquired throughout the body, 14 (40%) of the studies reported the nasal area alone and one study reported no anatomical location. A total of nine severity scales or combination of scales were utilized within studies (n = 31) and four studies did not report a scale. Various versions of scales from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 16), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 8) or Neonatal Skin Condition Score (n = 4) were reported, compared with locally developed classifications/scales (n = 4). Scales were predominantly of ordinal grouping (74%, n = 26) or categorical assessment (14%, n = 5). Only one scale from 2004 was validated for neonates.Neonatal skin injuries will continue to be reported subjectively until severity scales are consistently applied or other measurements are identified to support assessment. Additionally, without skin injury assessment uniformity, critical examination of effectiveness of skin care treatment practices will have subjective comparison. This review suggests there is a need for consistent skin assessment and severity scales that are valid for the neonatal population and their unique skin considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Aim Design Methods Results Conclusion Impact Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution An evidence and consensus‐based instrument is needed to classify central venous access device‐associated skin impairments.The aim of this study was to design and evaluate the central venous access device‐associated skin impairment classification tool.A two‐phase modified Delphi study.This two‐phase study consisted of a literature review, followed by the development and validation of a classification instrument, by experts in the fields of central venous access devices and wound management (Phase 1). The instrument was tested (Phase 2) using 38 clinical photographs of a range of relevant skin impairments by the same expert panel. The expert panel consisted of registered nurses who were clinical researchers (n = 4) and clinical experts (n = 3) with an average of 24 years of nursing and research experience and 11 years of experience in wound management. Measures to assess preliminary content validity and inter‐rater reliability were used.The instrument consists of five overarching aetiological classifications, including contact dermatitis, mechanical injury, infection, pressure injury and complex clinical presentation, with 14 associated subcategory diagnoses (e.g., allergic dermatitis, skin tear and local infection), with definitions and signs and symptoms. High agreement was achieved for preliminary scale content validity and item content validity (I‐CVI = 1). Inter‐rater reliability of aetiologies was high. The overall inter‐rater reliability of individual definitions and signs and symptoms had excellent agreement.The development and preliminary validation of this classification tool provide a common language to guide the classification and assessment of central venous access device‐associated skin impairment.The comprehensive and validated classification tool will promote accurate identification of central venous access device‐associated skin impairment by establishing a common language for healthcare providers. The availability of this tool can reduce clinical uncertainty, instances of misdiagnosis and the potential for mismanagement. Consequently, it will play a pivotal role in guiding clinical decision‐making, ultimately enhancing the quality of treatment and improving patient outcomes.The Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies (CREDES) was adhered to.No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Design Methods Results Conclusion Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution To explore the implementation contexts and strategies that influence the uptake and selection of alternative peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) materials and design.Qualitative evaluation of end user perspectives within a randomized control trial of different PICC materials and design.Semi‐structured interviews with key stakeholders were undertaken via an adapted, rapid‐analytic approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Outcomes were mapped against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool for strategies to guide innovation in PICC practice.Participants (n = 23) represented a combination of users and inserters/purchasers, from adult and paediatric settings. Dominant themes included intervention characteristics (intervention source), inner setting (structural characteristics) and individuals involved (self‐efficacy). Strategies emerging to support a change from ERIC mapping (n = 16) included promotion of intervention adaptability, inclusion of staff and consumer perspectives and sufficient funding. Implementation contexts such as inner setting and individuals involved equally impacted PICC success and implementation effectiveness and enabled a greater understanding of barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation in this trial.Trial evidence is important, but healthcare decision‐making requires consideration of local contexts especially resourcing. Implementation contexts for Australian healthcare settings include a practical, strategic toolkit for the implementation of alternative PICC materials and designs.This study adhered to COREQ guidelines.No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approximately 25% of hospitalised adults require an indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) during their hospital stay. IDCs expose patients to risks of infectious and non-infectious complications.To identify IDC prevalence, assess adherence to clinical practice guidelines and patient-reported involvement in IDC care for adult hospital inpatients.This point prevalence study was conducted in 22 wards in a single quaternary hospital. Data was collected by clinical and research nurses working in pairs on a single day. Study outcomes were reported descriptively as frequencies and percentages.Of 502 patients included, 77 (15.3%) had an IDC (median duration 99.6 h). The median age of patients with an IDC was 64 years (interquartile range 22–88 years), 54 (70%) were male and one-quarter (n = 19; 25%) of IDCs were inserted at another hospital. More than half (n = 44; 57%) of the 77 IDCs had no documented removal plan. Three patients were unavailable for review for observed clinical practices, and it was found 43% (n = 32/74) lacked a securement device. Of 77 people with IDCs, there were 44 patient responses, and 27 (61.4%) patients did not know the reason for their catheter.Areas for improvement included securement device use, timely removal plans and patient education for the reason for the device. Regular point prevalence studies to assess use and adherence to clinical practical guidelines can improve safety outcomes for patients requiring IDCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]