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]

Background: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. Aim: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. Design: A parallel‐group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. Methods: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post‐insertion failure. Results: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post‐insertion failure compared to midline catheters. Conclusion: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi‐centre trial to confirm findings is feasible. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? Peripheral intravenous catheters have endemically high incidence of complications.Midline catheters have been proposed as an alternative peripheral intravenous device, following recent advancements in catheter material and design.Few studies have compared safety and efficacy of contemporary midline catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters. What this paper adds: Midline catheters had a longer functional dwell time and lower incidence of post insertion‐failure, compared to peripheral intravenous catheters.Midline catheters appear safe; however, inserter skill appears to have critical influence on insertion success. The implications of this paper: This study established the feasibility and importance of a large, multicentre, randomized controlled trial to confirm findings.Future research should also focus on financial impacts, including cost‐efficiency.Policy makers should consider training specialist inserters to place midline catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women. Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time. Results: Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC. Conclusions: Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications. Design: This systematic review is reported by means of the Cochrane process for randomized controlled trials and the Meta‐analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology for cohort studies. Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference list of included studies were searched from 2000 ‐April 2019. Review Methods: Using a purpose designed data extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction and quality assessment. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled after Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation using random‐effects meta‐analysis; estimates of heterogeneity were taken from inverse‐variance fixed‐effect models. Results: Seventy observational studies and 33 randomized controlled trials were included (76,977 catheters). Peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications were as follows: phlebitis (with definition) 19.3%, phlebitis (without definition) 4.5%, infiltration/extravasation 13.7%, occlusion 8%, leakage 7.3%, pain 6.4% and dislodgement 6.0%. Subgroup analysis found infiltration/extravasation for emergency department‐inserted catheters was significantly higher (25.2%; p =.022) than for those inserted in other departments and pain was significantly higher (p <.001) in countries with developing economies compared with developed economies. Conclusion: Peripheral intravenous catheter complications are unacceptably common worldwide. This review suggests substantial and multi‐specialty efforts are needed to address the sequalae associated with complications. The potential benefits for patients and health services are considerable if complications are reduced. Impact: Peripheral intravenous complications interrupt important treatment which can be distressing for patients and result in longer hospital stays with increased healthcare costs. This review found phlebitis and infiltration are the most prevalent reason for catheter failure. These results provide nurses with a strong evidence base for the development of effective interventions for practice which are vital for preventing poor outcomes for patients with peripheral intravenous catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]