Search

Worldwide, there has been a shift in health care delivery, with an increasing emphasis on avoiding hospital admissions and providing treatment such as intravenous antibiotics for patients at home, using peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). However, there is inadequate data to demonstrate if rates of PICC failure are similar for hospital inpatients, currently understood to be between 7% and 36%, than those cared for at home. The objective of this study was to identify prevalence, dwell time, and complications associated with PICCs in the home setting. This single-center, retrospective cohort study of adults treated by the "Hospital in the Home" (HITH) program in Queensland, was conducted between June 1, 2017 and June 15, 2018. Clinical data were collected for patient and PICC characteristics. Variables were described as frequencies and proportions, means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges. In total, 304 patients treated by HITH during this timeframe, and 164 (54%) patients with 181 PICCs were included in this study. These patients were predominately male (n = 105, 64%), with a mean age of 54 years. The most common reason for admission was a wound infection and/or bone infection (n = 120, 33%). Most PICCs were single lumen (n = 120; 67%), inserted in the basilic vein (n = 137; 80%) by nurses (n = 122; 67%). Peripherally inserted central catheter failure occurred in 10% (n = 19); the most common complications were dislodgement (n = 9; 5%) and thrombosis (n = 4; 2%). There were no confirmed catheter-related blood stream infections. Peripherally inserted central catheter failure rates are similar between hospitalized inpatients and those cared for at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Many peripheral intravenous catheter ( PIVC) infusion phlebitis scales and definitions are used internationally, although no existing scale has demonstrated comprehensive reliability and validity. We examined inter-rater agreement between registered nurses on signs, symptoms and scales commonly used in phlebitis assessment. Methods Seven PIVC-associated phlebitis signs/symptoms (pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, palpable venous cord, purulent discharge and warmth) were observed daily by two raters (a research nurse and registered nurse). These data were modelled into phlebitis scores using 10 different tools. Proportions of agreement (e.g. positive, negative), observed and expected agreements, Cohen's kappa, the maximum achievable kappa, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa were calculated. Results Two hundred ten patients were recruited across three hospitals, with 247 sets of paired observations undertaken. The second rater was blinded to the first's findings. The Catney and Rittenberg scales were the most sensitive (phlebitis in >20% of observations), whereas the Curran, Lanbeck and Rickard scales were the most restrictive (≤2% phlebitis). Only tenderness and the Catney (one of pain, tenderness, erythema or palpable cord) and Rittenberg scales (one of erythema, swelling, tenderness or pain) had acceptable (more than two-thirds, 66.7%) levels of inter-rater agreement. Conclusions Inter-rater agreement for phlebitis assessment signs/symptoms and scales is low. This likely contributes to the high degree of variability in phlebitis rates in literature. We recommend further research into assessment of infrequent signs/symptoms and the Catney or Rittenberg scales. New approaches to evaluating vein irritation that are valid, reliable and based on their ability to predict complications need exploration. [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]

Background Up to 85% of hospital in-patients will require some form of vascular access device to deliver essential fluids, drug therapy, nutrition and blood products, or facilitate sampling. The failure rate of these devices is unacceptably high, with 20–69% of peripheral intravenous catheters and 15–66% of central venous catheters failing due to occlusion, depending on the device, setting and population. A range of strategies have been developed to maintain device patency, including intermittent flushing. However, there is limited evidence informing flushing practice and little is known about the current flushing practices. Objective The aim of the study was to improve our understanding of current flushing practices for vascular access devices through a survey of practice. Method A cross-sectional survey of nurses and midwives working in the State of Queensland, Australia was conducted using a 25-item electronic survey that was distributed via the local union membership database. Results A total of 1178 surveys were completed and analysed, with n = 1068 reporting peripheral device flushing and n = 584 reporting central device flushing. The majority of respondents were registered nurses (55%) caring for adult patients (63%). A large proportion of respondents (72% for peripheral, 742/1028; 80% for central, 451/566) were aware of their facility's policy for vascular access device flushing. Most nurses reported using sodium chloride 0.9% for flushing both peripheral (96%, 987/1028) and central devices (75%, 423/566). Some concentration of heparin saline was used by 25% of those flushing central devices. A 10-mL syringe was used by most respondents for flushing; however, 24% of respondents used smaller syringes in the peripheral device group. Use of prefilled syringes (either commercially prepared sterile or prefilled in the workplace) was limited to 10% and 11% respectively for each group. The frequency of flushing varied widely, with the most common response being pro re nata (23% peripheral and 21% central), or 6 hourly (23% peripheral and 22% central). Approximately half of respondents stated that there was no medical order or documentation for either peripheral or central device flushing. Conclusions Flushing practices for vascular access device flushing appear to vary widely. Specific areas of practice that warrant further investigation include questions about the efficacy of heparin for central device flushing, increasing adherence to the recommended 10 mL diameter syringe use, increased use of prefilled flush syringes, identifying and standardising optimal volumes and frequency of flushing, and improving documentation of flush orders and administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]