Search

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.

Highlights Abstract Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly placed with the assistance of fluoroscopy or medical imaging, ultrasound, electrocardiogram guidance, or all the above. Innovative ultrasound technologies continue to emerge; however, the impact upon clinical outcomes is not well understood. In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of an existing ultrasound system with SHERLOCK 3CG™ Tip Confirmation (preintervention) to an updated SHERLOCK 3CG Diamond Tip Confirmation system, incorporating catheter-to-vein ratio measurement capabilities and an advanced magnetic-based tip navigation system (postintervention). Methods: In this prospective pre-post cohort study, we recruited adult patients requiring a new PICC. The study was conducted at a quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Data were collected between May 2017 (4 months before equipment introduction) and January 2018 (4 months after equipment introduction), with a 1-month exclusion (education or learning) period in between. Patient, PICC, and device removal details were collected. The primary outcome was first-time insertion success, defined as successful PICC insertion after a single attempt (skin puncture), with the tip confirmed in an optimal location by the navigation system and a subsequent chest x-ray (as per hospital policy). Results: There were 503 participants with patient demographics and PICC characteristics balanced between the preintervention (n = 266) and postintervention (n = 237) groups. First-time insertion success was higher in the preintervention group (203/255, 80%) than the postintervention group (166/226, 73%), but this was not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.83–1.02). Conclusions: There was no change in clinical outcomes with the use of next-generation ultrasound technology. These results justify future large studies and subsequent review into the efficacy of tip-confirmation systems and processes to maintain patient safety.

Background Critically ill patients in an intensive care setting often require arterial catheters for blood pressure monitoring and arterial blood collection. Arterial catheter failure, which manifests in both mechanical and infective forms, remains common. Dressing and securement inadequacies may impact this failure; however, the best method for dressing and securing arterial catheters is yet to be determined. Objectives The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing methods for dressing and securing arterial catheters and to prevent device failure in an adult intensive care setting. Methods A pilot, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial was conducted between April 2017 and June 2018. Patients receiving treatment in two adult intensive care units (Queensland, Australia) were eligible for inclusion and were allocated to receive either (i) an integrated securement dressing or (ii) a simple polyurethane dressing (with gauze/foam), applied to their newly inserted arterial catheters. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were (i) feasibility (defined by pre-established criteria: patient eligibility, consent, protocol adherence, retention, and staff acceptability) and (ii) all-cause arterial catheter failure (a composite of local and bloodstream infection, occlusion, dislodgement, infiltration/extravasation, arterial inflammation, thrombosis, and/or inaccurate trace). Secondary outcomes included: failure type, dwell time, dressing adhesion, adverse event profiles, and staff acceptability. Results In total, 109 patients were studied (n = 53 integrated securement dressing; n = 56 simple polyurethane). The feasibility criterion was met by most patients (including rates of consent [86%], protocol adherence [93%], and retention [100%]); however, the criteria for patient eligibility were not met (73%). All-cause device failure did not differ significantly between the integrated securement device group (n = 12/53, 23%) and the simple polyurethane group (n = 6/56, 11%) (hazard ratio = 2.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.89–6.37, p = 0.083). Conclusions Findings indicate a larger study is feasible, with minor alterations to recruitment methods required. Arterial catheter failure remains unacceptably common; further research to determine optimal dressing/securement practices is urgently needed.

IntroductionPeripheral 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 analysisIn 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 laboratory-confirmed 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.Ethics and trial commencementEthical approvals were received from Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/18/QRBW/44571) and Griffith University (2018/1000). Trial commencement was May 2019. Trial registration: ACTRN12619000026123.

Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous medical devices, crucial to providing essential fluids and drugs. However, post-insertion PIVC failure occurs frequently, likely due to inconsistent maintenance practice such as flushing. The aim of this implementation study was to evaluate the impact a multifaceted intervention centred on short PIVC maintenance had on patient outcomes. Methods This single-centre, incomplete, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial with an implementation period was undertaken at a quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were from general medical and surgical wards, aged ≥ 18 years, and requiring a PIVC for > 24 h. Wards were the unit of randomisation and allocation was concealed until the time of crossover to the implementation phase. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked but infections were adjudicated by a physician masked to allocation. Practice during the control period was standard care (variable practice with manually prepared flushes of 0.9% sodium chloride). The intervention group received education reinforcing practice guidelines (including administration with manufacturer-prepared pre-filled flush syringes). The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of occlusion, infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, and primary bloodstream or local infection). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results Between July 2016 and February 2017, 619 patients from 9 clusters (wards) were enrolled (control n = 306, intervention n = 313), with 617 patients comprising the intention-to-treat population. PIVC failure was 91 (30%) in the control and 69 (22%) in the intervention group (risk difference − 8%, 95% CI − 14 to − 1, p = 0.032). Total costs were lower in the intervention group. No serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred. Conclusions This study demonstrated the effectiveness of post-insertion PIVC flushing according to recommended guidelines. Evidence-based education, surveillance and products for post-insertion PIVC management are vital to improve patient outcomes. Trial registration Trial submitted for registration on 25 January 2016. Approved and retrospectively registered on 4 August 2016. Ref: ACTRN12616001035415.

PURPOSE: To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure among patients requiring intravenous treatment for oncology and haematology conditions. METHODS: A single centre prospective cohort study was conducted between October 2017 and February 2019. Adult in-patients requiring a PIV for therapy were prospectively recruited from two cancer units at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome was a composite of complications leading to PIV failure (local- and bloodstream- infection; occlusion; infiltration/extravasation; leakage; dislodgement; and/or phlebitis). Secondary outcomes were: (i) PIV dwell-time; (ii) insertion- and (iii) failure of- a CVAD; (iv) adverse events; (v) length of hospital stay. Outcomes were investigated using Bayesian multivariable linear regression modelling, and survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 200 participants, 396 PIVs were included. PIV failure incidence was 34.9%; the most common failure type was occlusion/infiltration (n=74, 18.7%), then dislodgement (n=33, 8.3%), and phlebitis (n=30, 7.6%). While several patient and treatment risk factors were significant in univariable modelling, in the final multivariable model, only the use of non-sterile tape (external to the primary dressing) was significantly associated with decreased PIV dislodgement (Hazard Ratio 0.06, 95% Confidence Interval 0.01, 0.48; p=0.008). CONCLUSION: PIV failure rates among patients receiving treatment for cancer is high; the sequelae of which may include delayed treatment and infection. Larger studies on risk factors and interventions to prevent PIV failure in this population are needed; however, the use of secondary securements (such as non-sterile tape) to provide further securement to the primary PIV dressing is particularly important. REGISTRATION: Study methods were registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on the 27(th) March 2017 (ACTRN12617000438358); https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372191&isReview=true

Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) break the skin barrier, and preinsertion antiseptic disinfection and sterile dressings are used to reduce risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). In this study, the impact of PIVC skin site colonization on tip colonization and the development of CRBSI was investigated. Methods A total of 137 patients’ PIVC skin site swabs and paired PIVC tips were collected at catheter removal, cultured, and bacterial species and clonality were identified. Results Of 137 patients, 45 (33%) had colonized skin sites and/or PIVC tips. Of 16 patients with paired colonization of both the skin site and PIVC tips, 11 (69%) were colonized with the same bacterial species. Of these, 77% were clonally related, including 1 identical clone of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a patient with systemic infection and the same organism identified in blood culture. Conclusions The results demonstrate that opportunistic pathogen colonization at the skin site poses a significant risk for PIVC colonization and CRBSI. Further research is needed to improve current preinsertion antiseptic disinfection of PIVC skin site and the sterile insertion procedure to potentially reduce PIVC colonization and infection risk.

Background: Whether to remove or retain vascular access devices (VADs) when they are suspected of infection is an important clinical question with no certain answer. This review aims to explore current literature related to removal versus retention of central venous catheters (CVCs) and intra-arterial lines (IALs) suspected of infection in the adult intensive care population. Methods: A narrative review of studies describing management of VADs suspected of infection in the intensive care unit (ICU) was undertaken. After a systematic search, two clinical studies were included in the review. The methodological rigour of these studies was assessed per the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results: The two eligible studies consisted of one randomised control trial and one prospective observational study, including a total of 448 patients. Both studies scored highly on the MMAT, but only pertained to CVCs. No studies relating to other VAD types were identified. No significant differences in outcome were identified between patients whose VADs were removed or retained in the adult ICU cohort, apart from a reduction in number of CVC replacements in patients whose VAD was retained after infection was suspected. Conclusions: There is minimal evidence pertaining to removal versus retention of VADs suspected of infection in the adult ICU patient cohort, and there are limited recommendations specific to suspected infection guiding clinical practice. As a result, VADs may be unnecessarily removed. Further research assessing these important patient outcomes are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.

Purpose:The purpose of this scoping review is to conduct a systematic search and establish the current state of evidence for tools and instruments used to measure self-reported outcomes and experiences, including satisfaction scores, specifically for peripheral venous access devices (PVADs).Methods:A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using medical databases including: MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (EbscoHost); PubMed (NCBI); and Scopus (Elsevier); Google (Scholar); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Experimental, and observational studies, published in English, after 1990 will be eligible for inclusion if they: consist of (i) a survey, instrument or tool that is designed to (ii) collect outcome, experience and/or satisfaction data, relating to PVAD insertion, care, maintenance and/or removal, among (iii) adult and paediatric participants.Conclusions:PVAD-specific patient-reported outcome and experience measures are necessary for researchers, clinicians and policy decision makers to explore more thoroughly the quality of PVAD care provided, and further inform health economic analyses in the context of quality improvement interventions for vascular access devices. This scoping review will establish the existence—or paucity—of instruments to measure these selfreported outcomes and experiences of PVADs, in order to guide value-based healthcare delivery into the future.

Introduction Haemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in combat settings. Pre-hospital practice guidelines advocate for the rapid delivery of blood products and intravenous access to deliver adjunct treatments. However, peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is challenging in the austere setting, and catheter failure is common. This study aims to investigate dressing and securement methods to prevent catheter dislodgement and explore participants’ experiences with these methods within an Australian Defence Force Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) training course. Methods and analysis A two-phase mixed-method design will be used to compare the Ruggedised Field (Ranger) method with the S-Wrap technique to reduce PIVC dislodgement rates during TCCC simulations. The study will be undertaken at the Australian Army School of Health in Victoria, Australia. In Phase 1, we will examine the pull-out force of each dressing securement method in vitro. Phase 2 will involve (i) an observational audit (n=30 participants) of TCCC training to assess the quality and safety of PIVC securement practices and (ii) focus groups with participating healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n

BackgroundData regarding vascular access device use and outcomes are limited. In part, this gap reflects the absence of guidance on what variables should be collected to assess patient outcomes. We sought to derive international consensus on a vascular access minimum dataset.MethodsA modified Delphi study with three rounds (two electronic surveys and a face-to-face consensus panel) was conducted involving international vascular access specialists. In Rounds 1 and 2, electronic surveys were distributed to healthcare professionals specialising in vascular access. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of variables, feasibility of data collection and acceptability of items, definitions and response options. In Round 3, a purposive expert panel met to review Round 1 and 2 ratings and reach consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final items to be included in a minimum dataset for vascular access devices.ResultsA total of 64 of 225 interdisciplinary healthcare professionals from 11 countries responded to Round 1 and 2 surveys (response rate of 34% and 29%, respectively). From the original 52 items, 50 items across five domains emerged from the Delphi procedure.Items related to demographic and clinical characteristics (n=5; eg, age), device characteristics (n=5; eg, device type), insertion (n=16; eg, indication), management (n=9; eg, dressing and securement), and complication and removal (n=15, eg, occlusion) were identified as requirements for a minimum dataset to track and evaluate vascular access device use and outcomes.ConclusionWe developed and internally validated a minimum dataset for vascular access device research. This study generated new knowledge to enable healthcare systems to collect relevant, useful and meaningful vascular access data. Use of this standardised approach can help benchmark clinical practice and target improvements worldwide.

Intravenous therapy for patients with a range of haematological disorders is an essential component of disease treatment. Although central venous access devices are preferred for irritant or vesicant intravenous therapies, the peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) has an important role, offering a simple, cost-effective way to deliver short-term, peripherally compatible treatments. Unfortunately, this important device is susceptible to failure, with more than half of all PIVCs in hospitalised patients developing complications such as occlusion, infiltration, phlebitis, dislodgement, and infections that result in device removal. 12 Consequently, PIVCs are not reliably doing the task for which they are required. PIVC failure and poor PIVC maintenance practice are a substantial health-care problem. It is often assumed that fixing poor practice will fix failure, 3 but will it? Is the problem poor practice alone, or is it the device itself?

AC’s employer, on her behalf, has received investigator-initiated research grants from Cardinal Health and Eloquest Healthcare (unrelated to current project). JAS discloses that her current or previous employer has received on her behalf: investigator-initiated research grants from BD-Bard unrelated to current project.

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.

Background Evidence-based bundles have reduced central line bloodstream infection rates in adult intensive care units. To tackle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) bloodstream infection, many hospitals have implemented PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles. However, the efficacy of PIVC bundles in preventing PIVC complications and infection in hospital patients is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles on preventing adverse events. Methods In this systematic review, we searched multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and grey literature for eligible studies published in English (January 2000–December 2018) to identify intervention studies evaluating PIVC insertion or maintenance bundles with two or more components. Search terms: peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula, insertion, maintenance, bundle, infection, infiltration, extravasation, dislodgement, thrombosis, occlusion, and phlebitis. Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and quality assessments using the Downs and Black checklist. Results Of 14,456 records screened, 13 studies (6 interrupted time-series, 7 before-and-after) were included. Insertion and maintenance bundles included multiple components (2–7 items per bundle). Despite testing different bundles, 12 studies reported reductions in phlebitis and bloodstream infection, and one study reported no change in bloodstream infection and an increase in phlebitis rate. Methodological quality of all studies ranked between ‘low' and ‘fair'. Conclusions The effect of PIVC bundles on PIVC complications and bloodstream infection rates remains uncertain. Standardisation of bundle components and more rigorous studies are needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017075142.

Objective:To establish the reliability of the application of National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) criteria within established reporting systems internationally.Design:Diagnostic-test accuracy systematic review.Methods:We conducted a search of Medline, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EbscoHost), and PubMed (NCBI). Cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared publicly reported CLABSI rates and were conducted by independent and expertly trained reviewers using NHSN/Centers for Disease Control (or equivalent) criteria. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were analyzed.Results:A systematic search identified 1,259 publications; 9 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 7,160 central lines). Publicly reported CLABSI rates were more likely to be underestimated (7 studies) than overestimated (2 studies). Specificity ranged from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00) and sensitivity ranged from 0.42 (95% CI, 0.15–0.72) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77–0.95). Four studies, which included a consecutive series of patients (whole cohort), reported CLABSI incidence between 9.8% and 20.9%, and absolute CLABSI rates were underestimated by 3.3%–4.4%. The risk of bias was low to moderate in most included studies.Conclusions:Our findings suggest consistent underestimation of true CLABSI incidence within publicly reported rates, weakening the validity and reliability of surveillance measures. Auditing, education, and adequate resource allocation is necessary to ensure that surveillance data are accurate and suitable for benchmarking and quality improvement measures over time.Registration:Prospectively registered with International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42015021989; June 7, 2015). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID%3dCRD42015021989

Objective: The aim of the current study was to map a global picture of the practice of inserting large-bore peripheral intravenous catheters in parturient women. Methods: We analysed a sub-set of data from a prospective, multi-centre, international prevalence study, the One Million Global peripheral intravenous catheter study. The obstetric cohort was drawn from 163 maternity units in 35 countries (1477 women, 1577 catheters) and was collected between 1 June 2014 and 31 July 2015. Clinicians at each of the participating sites collected data using tools that had been previously validated. Results are reported as frequencies and proportions. Results: Overall, 42% of all peripheral intravenous catheters were large bore and of all catheters placed in females in obstetric units, 438 (70%) of these were placed in the hand or wrist. The phlebitis rate was higher in the large-bore group (12%) compared with those with smaller catheters (7%). Only 2% of women received blood products, but it was unclear which catheter was used for this purpose. Conclusion: Large-bore peripheral intravenous catheters are overused for vascular access in parturient women. They are painful and may cause vascular damage. If there is no indication, a catheter should not be placed at all.

Background: Vascular access devices are widely used in healthcare settings worldwide. The insertion of a vascular access device creates a wound, vulnerable to irritation, injury and infection. Vascular access-associated skin complications are frequently reported in the literature, however very little evidence is available regarding the incidence and risk factors of these conditions to inform practice and technology development. Objectives: To estimate the incidence of vascular access-associated skin complications, and to identify patient, catheter and healthcare-related characteristics associated with skin complication development. Design: Secondary data analysis from 13 multi-centre randomised controlled trials and observational studies evaluating technologies and performance of vascular access devices in clinical settings between 2008 and 2017. Settings: Six hospitals (metropolitan and regional) in Queensland, Australia. Participants: The 13 studies involved paediatric and adult participants, across oncology, emergency, intensive care, and general hospital settings. A total of 7669 participants with 10,859 devices were included, involving peripheral venous (n = 9933), peripheral arterial (n = 341), and central venous access (n = 585) devices. Analysis: Standardised study data were extracted into a single database. Clinical and demographic data were descriptively reported. Cox proportional hazards regression models (stratified by peripheral vs central) were used for time-to-event, per-device analyses to examine risk factors. Univariate associations were undertaken due to complexities with missing data in both outcomes and covariates, with p < 0.01 to reduce the effect of multiple comparisons. Results: Over 12% of devices were associated with skin complication, at 46.2 per 1000 catheter days for peripheral venous and arterial devices (95% confidence interval, CI 42.1–50.7), and 22.5 per 1000 catheter days for central devices (95% CI 16.5–306). The most common skin complications were bruising (peripheral n = 134, 3.7%; central n = 33, 6.8%), and swelling due to infiltration for peripheral devices (n = 296; 2.9%), and dermatitis for central devices (n = 13; 2.2%). The significant risk factors for these complications were predominantly related to device (e.g., skin tears associated with peripheral arterial catheters [hazard ratio, HR 16.0], radial insertion [HR 18.0] basilic insertion [HR 26.0])) and patient characteristics (e.g., poor skin integrity associated with increased risk of peripheral device bruising [HR 4.12], infiltration [HR 1.98], and skin tear [HR 48.4]), rather than management approaches. Conclusions: Significant skin complications can develop during the life of peripheral and central vascular access devices, and these are associated with several modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Further research is needed to evaluate effectiveness technologies to prevent and treat skin complications associated with vascular access devices.

Background: Skin microorganisms may contribute to the development of vascular access device (VAD) infections. Baseline skin microorganism type and quantity vary between body sites, yet there is little evidence to inform choice of VAD site selection. Objective: To compare microorganisms present at different body sites used for VAD insertions and understand the effect of transparent dressings on skin microflora. Methods: The ESCAPE observational study consisted of three phases: (1) skin swabs of four sites (mid-neck, base neck, chest, upper arm) from 48 hospital patients; (2) skin swabs of five body sites (mid-neck, base neck, chest, upper arm, lower arm) from 10 healthy volunteers; and (3) paired skin swabs (n = 72) under and outside of transparent dressings from 36 hospital patients (16 mid/base neck, 10 chest, upper arm). Specimens were cultured for 72 h, species identified and colony-forming units (CFU) counted. Ordinal logistic regression compared CFU categories between variables of interest. Results: The chest and upper arm were significantly associated with fewer microorganisms compared to neck or forearm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25–0.65, P < 0.05). CFU levels under transparent dressings were not significantly different from outside (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.22–1.45). Staphylococci were predominant at all sites. Other significant ( P < 0.05) predictors of higher CFU count included prolonged hospitalisation and medical/surgical patient status. Discussion: Skin microorganism load was significantly lower at the upper arm or chest, compared to the mid- or base neck. This may impact VAD site selection and subsequent infection risk.

Background Vascular access devices suspected of infection are often removed unnecessarily and frequently require replacement. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence and economic impact of premature, unnecessary device removal due to suspected infection in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods Secondary data analysis of a prospectively collected data set detailing central venous catheters and peripheral arterial catheters in 1458 adult patients was conducted in nine Australian intensive care units. Data extracted from the parent database included patient demographics, device, and infection-specific data including the reason for device removal. Cost estimates were based on a recently published review of device utilisation and associated costs in Queensland public hospitals. Results A total of 6144 central venous catheter days and 4696 arterial catheter days were studied. Median device dwell time was 7.2 (interquartile range: 5.6–9.0) days for central venous catheters and 6.5 (interquartile range: 4.8–8.5) days for arterial catheters. Device removal due to suspected infection occurred at a rate of 25.7 and 15.3 episodes/1000 catheter days in central venous and arterial catheters, respectively. Central venous and arterial catheter–related bloodstream infections occurred at a rate of 1.8 and 0.2 episodes/1000 catheter days, respectively. Central line–associated bloodstream infection occurred at a rate of 3.3 episodes/1000 catheter days. Local central venous and arterial catheter infection occurred at 0.16 and 0.02 episodes/1000 catheter days, respectively. The difference in incidence between devices suspected of infection and those responsible for infection resulted in AUD$67,087 unnecessarily spent on device replacement. Conclusions Unnecessary device removal due to suspected infection presents a substantial clinical problem which is costly for the healthcare organisation and time-consuming for clinicians and places the patient at an increased risk of iatrogenic complications. There is a need for robust evidence and clinical practice guidelines to inform clinical decision-making to reduce unnecessary device removal.

IntroductionPeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are vital for the delivery of medical therapies, but up to 30% of PICCs are associated with complications such as deep vein thrombosis or infection. The integration of antimicrobial and hydrophobic catheter materials, and pressure-activated valves, into polyurethane PICCs are innovations designed to prevent infective and/or thrombotic complications.Methods and analysisA multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with two experimental arms ((1) hydrophobic PICC (with pressure-activated valve); (2) chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated PICC (with external clamp)) and one control group ((3) conventional polyurethane PICC (with external clamp)). Recruitment of 1098 adult and paediatric patients will take place over 2 years at three tertiary-referral hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Patients are eligible for inclusion if their PICC is to be inserted for medical treatment, with a vascular size sufficient to support a 4-Fr PICC or larger, and with informed consent. The primary outcome is PICC failure, a composite of thrombotic (venous thrombosis, breakage and occlusion) and infective complications (PICC-associated bloodstream infection and local infection). Secondary outcomes include: all-cause PICC complication; thrombotic complications; infective complications; adverse events (local or systemic reaction); PICC dwell time; patient/parent satisfaction; and healthcare costs. Differences between both intervention groups and the control group will be compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Effect estimates will be presented as HRs with corresponding 95% CI.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/QCHQ/48682) and Griffith University (Ref. No. 2019/094). Results will be published.Trial registration numberACTRN12619000022167.

Peripheral intravenous catheters are an essential medical device which are prone to complications and failure.Identify patient, provider and device risk factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure as well as individual complications: phlebitis, infiltration/occlusion, and dislodgement to improve patient outcomes.Secondary analysis of twelve prospective studies performed between 2008 and 2020.Australian metropolitan and regional hospitals including one paediatric hospital.Participants were from medical, surgical, haematology, and oncology units.Multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival regression was used to identify factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration, and dislodgement. We studied patient (e.g., age, gender), device (e.g., gauge), and provider (e.g., inserting clinician) variables. Stepwise regression involved clinically and p0.20 significant variables entered into the multivariable model. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); p0.01 was considered statistically significant.Of 11,830 peripheral intravenous catheters (8,200 participants) failure occurred in 36% (n = 4,263). Occlusion/infiltration incidence was 23% (n = 2,767), phlebitis 12% (n = 1,421), and dislodgement 7% (n = 779) of catheters. Patient factors significantly associated with failure and complications were: female gender (phlebitis; (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.72-2.27), (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33-1.58), (failure; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.46); and each year increase in age (phlebitis; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.98-0.99), (failure; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.99-0.99). The strongest provider risk factor was intravenous antibiotics (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27-1.53), (phlebitis; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56), (failure; HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.36). Catheters inserted by vascular access teams were less likely to dislodge (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67). Device risk factors most associated with all-cause failure were wrist/hand (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.46), antecubital fossa peripheral intravenous catheters (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.44) and 22/24 gauge (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.45) catheters.Factors identified, including the protective aspect of vascular access team insertion, and high catheter failure associated with intravenous antibiotic administration, will allow targeted updates of peripheral intravenous catheter guidelines and models of care.

Background Central venous catheters are prone to infectious complications, affecting morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs at the catheter insertion site may prevent local and bloodstream infection; however, efficacy has not been established in a critical care setting. Objective The objective of this study was to pilot test polyhexamethylene biguanide–impregnated discs compared to standard unmedicated dressings for central venous catheter infection prevention in critically ill patients. Methods This was a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial. Adults admitted to intensive care requiring a central venous catheter for >72 h were eligible. Patients with a current bloodstream infection, concurrent central venous catheter, chlorhexidine or polyhexamethylene biguanide allergy, or sensitive skin were excluded. Patients were randomised to receive standard central venous catheter dressings with/without polyhexamethylene biguanide discs. Outcome measures The primary outcome was feasibility, defined by patient eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data, and staff satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included: central line–associated infection; primary bloodstream infection; local infection; skin complications; device/dressing dwell time; serious adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. Results Of 309 patients screened, 80 participants were recruited with 98% (n = 78) receiving an internal jugular catheter which dwelled for a median of 5 days (interquartile range = 4.0, 6.0). Feasibility criteria were predominantly met (recruitment 88%; retention 100%; protocol fidelity 91%); however, eligibility criteria were not met (32%; most commonly owing to short predicted catheter dwell). Staff acceptability criteria were met, with 83% of staff scoring dressing application and removal ≥7 on a numerical rating scale. There were no central line–associated bloodstream infections and no local infections. Insertion site itch occurred in 4% (control [n = 0], intervention [n = 3]) of participants, while 32% (24/76) reported pain, and 46% (35/76) tenderness. Conclusions Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs appear safe for central venous catheter infection prevention. Feasibility of a large efficacy trial was established with some modifications to screening processes. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to test the infection prevention hypotheses.

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are medical devices used to administer intravenous therapy but can be complicated by soft tissue or bloodstream infection. Monitoring PIVC safety and quality through clinical auditing supports quality infection prevention however is labour intensive. We sought to determine the optimal patient ‘number’ for clinical audits to inform evidence-based surveillance. Methods: We studied a dataset of cross-sectional PIVC clinical audits collected over five years (2015–2019) in a large Australian metropolitan hospital. Audits included adult medical, surgical, women's, cancer, emergency and critical care patients, with audit sizes of 69–220 PIVCs. The primary outcome was PIVC complications for one or more patient reported symptom/auditor observed sign of infection or other complications. Complication prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. We modelled scenarios of low (10%), medium (20%) and high (50%) prevalence estimates against audit sizes of 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300. This was used to develop a decision-making tool to guide audit size. Results: Of 2274 PIVCs evaluated, 475 (21%) had a complication. Complication prevalence per round varied from 7.8% (95% CI, 4.2–12.9) to 39% (95% CI, 32.0–46.4). Precision improved with larger audit size and lower complication rates. However, precision was not meaningfully improved by auditing >150 patients at a complication rate of 20% (95% CI 13.9%–27.3%), nor >200 patients at a complication rate of 50% (95% CI 42.9%–57.1%). Conclusion: Audit sizes should be 100 to 250 PIVCs per audit round depending on complication prevalence.

BackgroundUnused('idle')peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) are those not used within 24 hours of insertion. There is little data on cannulation practices and idle PIVC rates in emergency settings, especially the pre-hospital environment.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study set in south-east Queensland, Australia using data from a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and the local statutory ambulance service. Demographic, clinical and PIVC data were collected over two periods; 9 February–18 March 2017 and 5 January–4 February 2018. Adult patients were included if they were allocated an Australasian triage scale (ATS) category between 2 and 5, and had a PIVC inserted in the pre-hospital setting or ED. PIVC use was defined as idle if no fluids, medications or contrast were administered intravenously within 24 hours of insertion. Comparisons between pre-hospital and ED practice and idle PIVC status were undertaken using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.ResultsA total of 1249 patients with a PIVC (372 pre-hospital; 877 ED) were included. Overall, 366 PIVCs (29.3%; 95% CI 26.9%–31.9%) remained idle at 24 hours. In the pre-hospital group, 147 (39.5%) PIVCs inserted were not used pre-hospital, and 74 (19.9%) remained idle. In comparison, 292 (33.3%) PIVCs placed in the ED remained idle. ED staff more frequently inserted PIVCs in the antecubital fossa than paramedics (65.5% vs. 49.7%), where forearm PIVC insertion was more common pre-hospital than in ED (13.7% vs. 7.4%). Nursing staff inserted idle PIVCs at a rate of (35.1%) compared to doctors (29.6%) and paramedics (19.9%). Having a PIVC inserted in the ED was the only factor significantly (p ≤ .001) predicting an idle outcome (Odds Ratio: 2.4; 95% CI 1.7–3.3).ConclusionOne-third of PIVCs inserted within the emergency setting remained idle, suggesting unnecessary risk and costs. Pre-hospital and ED PIVC insertion practices differed, with idle PIVCs 2.4 times more prevalent if inserted in the ED than pre-hospital and with greater use of antecubital insertion. Reasons for these differences are not well understood and requires more targeted research.

Introduction: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) scanning requires a large bore peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) to support the high-flow injection of contrast needed to generate a quality image. Unfortunately, not all patients’ veins will tolerate high-flow injection and this can subsequently lead to complications, procedural delays, use of alternate intravascular access, and potential compromise of scan image. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of perforated catheters compared to standard catheters in reducing PIVC complications and failure during high-flow injection for CECT scans. Methods and analysis: This single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be undertaken to test the feasibility of conducting a larger trial comparing a PIVC with a novel perforated design to a standard (non-perforated) PIVC. The study will be conducted at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Australia, and the recruitment target is 60 (30 per group). There are two primary outcomes of interest to test: 1) Feasibility of an adequately powered RCT with pre-established criteria for eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence and retention; and 2) All cause PIVC failure rate. Secondary outcomes to be collected include first insertion success, subtypes of PIVC failure, PIVC dwell time, contrast delivery, and CECT image quality. Adverse and serious adverse events (i.e., extravasation, allergic reaction to the contrast) also will be monitored. Feasibility outcomes will be reported descriptively and assessed against pre-determined acceptability criteria. Statistical comparison methods will be tested. Regression analysis will assess the effect of patient and treatment differences. Ethics and trial commencement: This pilot trial has ethical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/2019/QRBW/55616) and Queensland University of Technology (QUTHREC/1900001090).

Background Peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction is associated with reduced catheter-related deep vein thrombosis. Electrocardiographic tip confirmation purportedly improves accuracy of tip placement, but whether this approach can reduce deep vein thrombosis is unknown. Methods Prospectively collected data from patients that received peripherally inserted central catheters at 52 Michigan hospitals were analyzed. The method used to confirm tip confirmation at insertion and deep vein thrombosis outcomes were extracted from medical records. Multivariate models (accounting for the clustered nature of the data) were fitted to assess the association between peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis and method of tip confirmation (electrocardiographic vs radiographic imaging). Results A total of 42,687 peripherally inserted central catheters (21,098 radiology vs 21,589 electrocardiographic) were included. Patients receiving electrocardiographic-confirmed peripherally inserted central catheters had fewer comorbidities compared with those that underwent placement via radiology. Overall, deep vein thrombosis occurred in 594 (1.3%) of all peripherally inserted central catheters. Larger catheter size (odds radio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.90 per unit increase in gauge), history of deep vein thrombosis, and cancer were associated with increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (OR 2.00; 95% CI, 1.65-2.43 and OR 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16-2.26, respectively) using logistic regression. Following adjustment, electrocardiographic guidance was associated with a significant reduction in peripherally inserted central catheter-related deep vein thrombosis compared with radiographic imaging (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; P = .0098). Conclusion The use of electrocardiography to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter tip placement at the cavoatrial junction was associated with significantly fewer deep vein thrombosis events than radiographic imaging. Use of this approach for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion may help improve patient safety, particularly in high-risk patients.

Pilot randomized controlled trial (180 patients) of needleless connector decontamination. Central line-associated bloodstream infection occurred in 2% (1/61) of 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) wipe, 2% (1/59) of 70% IPA cap, and zero (0/58) infections in 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% IPA wipe patients. Larger definitive trials are feasible and needed.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications.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.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.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.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.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.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.目的: 本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在概述和量化外周静脉导管相关并发症。 设计: 本系统评价是通过随机对照试验用Cochrane程序和队列研究用荟萃分析流行病观察研究来报告的。 数据来源: 2000年至2019年4月期间,检索了Cochrane对照试验中央缓存器、PubMed、CINAHL和EMBASE数据库、ClinicalTrials.gov等临床试验缓存器和纳入研究的参考文献清单。 审查方法: 两位作者使用专门设计的数据提取工具,独立确定了全面审查、数据提取和质量评估方面的研究。在Freeman-Tukey双重反正弦转化后,使用随机效应荟萃分析对二元结果进行汇总;异质性的估计是基于逆方差固定效应模型。 结果: 纳入了70项观察性研究和33项随机对照试验(76977例导管)。外周静脉导管相关并发症如下:静脉炎(有定义)19.3%、静脉炎(无定义)4.5%、浸润/外渗13.7%、闭塞8%,渗漏7.3%、疼痛6.4%和移位6.0%。亚组分析发现,急诊科插入的导管的浸润/外渗明显高于其他科室插入的导管的浸润/外渗(25.2%;p=.022),发展中经济体国家的疼痛明显高于发达经济体国家(p.001)。 结论: 外周静脉导管并发症在全球范围内是不可接受的常见病症。本项审查表明,需要做出大量的多专业工作来解决与并发症相关的后遗症问题。减少并发症将对患者和医疗服务产生巨大的潜在益处。 影响: 外周静脉并发症使得重要治疗中断,这可能会给患者带来痛苦,并导致住院时间延长,医疗费用增加。本项审查发现静脉炎和浸润是导管失败的最主要原因。这些结果为护士制定有效的实践干预措施提供了有力的证据基础,这对预防外周静脉导管患者的预后不良至关重要。.

Background To evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing a hydrophobic polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) with a standard polyurethane PICC. Methods This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between May 2017 and February 2018. Adult participants (n = 111) were assigned to hydrophobic polyurethane PICC with proximal valve (intervention) or a polyurethane PICC with external clamp (standard care). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were central line-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, occlusion, thrombosis, fracture and dislodgement, phlebitis, local or systemic allergic reaction, and PICC dwell time. Results All feasibility outcomes were achieved, apart from eligibility criteria. In total, 338 patients were screened, 138 were eligible (41%), and of these 111 were randomised (80%). Patients received the allocated PICC in 106 (95%) insertions. No patients withdrew from the study and there was no missing data. PICC failure was 24% (13/55) in the intervention group and 22% (12/55) in the standard care group (p = 0.820). PICC failure per 1000 PICC days was 16.3 in the intervention group and 18.4 in the control group (p = 0.755). The average dwell time was 12 days in the intervention and 8 days in the control group. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of an efficacy trial of PICC materials in an adult population, once adjustments were made to include not only in-patients, but also patients being discharged to the Hospital in the Home service. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001578493. Prospectively registered on 16 November 2016. The trial protocol was published a priori (Kleidon et al., Vasc Access 3:15–21, 2017).

Evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy randomised control trial (RCT) of paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) securement to prevent failure without resultant skin damage.A 3-arm, pilot RCT in an Australian paediatric hospital. Random assignment of 330 children to receive (i) bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU) + non-sterile foam (NSF), (ii) integrated securement dressing (ISD) + sterile foam (SF), or (iii) tissue adhesive (TA)+ NSF. Primary outcomes were feasibility and PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: skin/bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration; dislodgement; phlebitis; dwell; serious adverse events; acceptability and microbial colonisation of catheter tips, wound site, and foam.Most feasibility outcomes were confirmed; 98% of eligible patients consented, 96% received their allocated dressing and no patients were lost to follow up. Eligilbility feasibility (58%) was not met. 11 randomised patients did not require a PIVC. Of 319 patients receiving a PIVC (20,716 PIVC-hours), a significant reduction in PIVC failure was demonstrated with ISD, 31/107 (29%, p = 0.017) compared to BPU, 47/105 (45%). Although not statistically significant, compared to BPU, TA 34/107 (32%, p = 0.052) was associated with less PIVC failure. On Cox regression, no securement intervention significantly reduced PIVC failure. Older age (HR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.96; p =0.01), no infection at baseline (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34-0.78) and insertion by vascular access specialist (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.64) were significantly associated with reduced failure (p 0.05).ISD and TA had reduced PIVC failure compared to BPU. A large efficacy trial to test statistical differences is feasible and needed.

Background The peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) is the most frequently used invasive medical device. PIVCs fail for a variety of reasons and failure often results in serious adverse events leading to patient discomfort, delays in treatment, increased health care costs and even death. Undergraduate nurses assess and manage PIVCs as part of their clinical learning. To date, no study has explored undergraduate nurses' perceptions of the education they receive about PIVCs. Aim We sought to critically explore the current state of education regarding PIVCs from the perspectives of undergraduate nurses. Methods This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with third-year undergraduate nurses. Data were collected across two sites in Queensland, Australia. Fourteen face-to-face interviews were conducted and a modified 5-step qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. Findings We identified three key domains relating to participants' experiences of PIVC education: 1) Universities provide foundational knowledge about PIVC assessment, management and removal; 2) Clinical practice consolidates and drives undergraduate nurses' knowledge, skills and confidence about PIVCs; and 3) inconsistencies in clinical practice and between individual clinicians impedes learning and knowledge translation about PIVCs. Conclusion Nursing students benefit from theoretical content delivered in the university setting. Practical application of theory and skill development whilst on clinical placement is variable. The current undergraduate curriculum, related to management of patients with a PIVC, is disjointed and inconsistent and this inconsistency may negatively impact patient safety.

To the Editor: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) creates a huge and often preventable burden for the healthcare system. In Australia, CAUTI accounts for 30% of healthcare-associated infections [1,2], leading to increased healthcare costs, length of stay, and patient morbidity [1]. As the estimated cost to the healthcare system of one CAUTI is approximately US$7,6703, CAUTI costs the Australian healthcare system millions of dollars each year. Preventing CAUTI is a high priority patient safety issue included under Standard 3 of the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards [4]. Healthcare-associated urinary tract infections, of which CAUTI represent a large proportion, also form part of the Australian hospital-acquired complication data set [5]. In order to reduce expenditure and improve patient outcomes, healthcare facilities are required to measure healthcare-associated infections (HAI), including CAUTI, and implement strategies targeting HAI risk factors.

Introduction: Many patients are discharged from hospital with a peripherally inserted central catheter in place. Monitoring the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site for clinical and research purposes is important for identifying complications, but the extent to which patients can reliably report the condition of their catheter insertion site is uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-observer agreement between nurses and patients when assessing a peripherally inserted central catheter site. Methods: The study was based on inpatients who were enrolled in a single-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing four different dressing and securement devices for peripherally inserted central catheter sites. A seven-item peripherally inserted central catheter site assessment tool, containing questions about the condition of the dressing and the insertion site, was developed. Assessment was conducted once by the research nurse and, within a few minutes, independently by the patient. Proportions of agreement and Cohen’s kappa were calculated. Results: In total, 73 patients agreed to participate. Overall, percentage agreement ranged from 83% to 100% (kappa = .65–.82). For important clinical signs (redness, swelling, ooze, pus and tracking), there were high levels of percentage agreement (99%–100%). Conclusion: The high level of agreement between nurse/patient pairs make the instrument useful for assessing peripherally inserted central catheter–associated signs of localised infection, allergic or irritant dermatitis or dressing dislodgement in a community setting.

Background Insertion of a 16 or 18 gauge peripheral intravenous catheter is a potentially painful intervention but one frequently experienced by pregnant women when admitted to hospital. Although the rationale for this practice is ‘in case of an emergency bleed’, evidence for using large-bore catheters in this population is absent. Aims (i) To identify the proportion of 18 gauge or larger peripheral catheters inserted into maternity patients; and (ii) to investigate the proportion of women who require blood products during their perinatal period. Materials and Methods Data from a sub-set of maternity patients who were included in a study of risk factors for peripheral intravenous access failure were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results One hundred and fourteen catheters were inserted in 95 women. Of the 95 first-inserted catheters, 84 (88.4%) were 16 or 18 gauge and 69 (82.1%) of these were placed in the hand or wrist. Four women (4%) received blood products, all were for non-urgent transfusions. Conclusion Postpartum haemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion remains a relatively rare event. Comprehensive risk assessment should be undertaken before inserting large-bore catheters in perinatal women. Small veins in the hand and wrist should not be used for large bore catheters.

Despite vascular access devices (VADs) being vital for patient care, device failure rates are unacceptably high with around 25% of central venous devices, and 30–40% of peripheral venous devices, developing complications that result in VAD failure. The use of tissue adhesive is a novel method of securing VADs and is gaining popularity, however the evidence base guiding its clinical use is still emerging. This article aims to review the types and properties of tissue adhesives, provide an overview of the existing evidence base, and discuss how tissue adhesives may be used in clinical practice.

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for delivering intravenous therapy. PICC failure is unacceptably high (up to 40%) due to mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. Poor securement potentiates all complication types. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to examine the feasibility of a large RCT of four dressing and securement methods to prevent PICC failure. Methods This single-centre pilot RCT included 124 admitted medical/surgical/cancer patients aged ≥ 16 years with a PICC. Interventions were: (i) standard polyurethane dressing and sutureless securement device (SPU + SSD, control); (ii) polyurethane with absorbent lattice pad dressing (PAL + Tape); (iii) combination securement-dressing (CSD); and (iv) tissue adhesive (TA + SPU). All groups except TA + SPU had a chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated disc. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and safety/acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was PICC failure, a composite of PICC removal for local infection, catheter-associated bloodstream infection, dislodgement, occlusion, and/or catheter fracture. Secondary outcomes included individual complications, dressing failure and dwell time, PICC dwell time, skin complications/phlebitis indicators, product costs, and patient and staff satisfaction. Qualitative feedback was also collected. Results PICC failure incidence was: PAL + CHG + Tape (1/5; 20%; 17.4/1000 days), SPU + SSD + CHG (control) (4/39; 10%; 9.0/1000 days), TA + SPU (3/35; 9%; 9.6/1000 days), and CSD + CHG (3/42; 7%; 9.4/1000 days). Recruitment to PAL + CHG + Tape was ceased after five participants due to concerns of PICC dislodgement when removing the dressing. CSD + CHG, TA + SPU (TA applied only at PICC insertion time), and control treatments were acceptable to patients and health professionals. Conclusion A large RCT of CSD + CHG and TA + SPU (but not PAL + CHG + Tape) versus standard care is feasible. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000027415 . Registered on 15 January 2016.

Purpose Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) containing dressings are increasingly used in clinical environments for prevention of infection at central venous catheter insertion sites. Increased tolerance to this biocide in staphylococci is primarily associated with the presence of qacA/B and smr genes. Methodology Here we used a culture independent method to assess the prevalence of these genes in 78 DNA specimens recovered from the skin of 43 patients at catheter insertion sites in the arm that were covered with CHG-dressings. Results Of the 78 DNA specimens analysed, 52 (67%) possessed qacA/B and 14 (18%) possessed smr; all sample positive for smr were also positive for qacA/B. These prevalence rates were not statistically greater than that observed in a subsample of specimens taken from non-CHG treated contralateral arms and non-CHG dressing exposed patient's arms. A statistically greater proportion of specimens with greater than 72 hours exposure to CHG dressings were qac-positive (p= 0.04), suggesting the patients were contaminated with bacteria or DNA containing qacA/B during their hospital stay. The presence of qac genes was not positively associated with the presence of DNA specific for S. epidermidis and S. aureus in these specimens. Conclusion Our results show that CHG-genes are highly prevalent on hospital patients' skin, even in the absence of viable bacteria.

Background: Peripheral vascular catheters (PVC) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals, with 330 million sold each year in the USA alone. One in three UK inpatients at any one time has at least one PVC in situ according to the Scottish National Prevalence survey. Method: A narrative review of studies describing the infection risks associated with PVCs. Results: It is estimated that 30–80% of hospitalised patients receive at least one PVC during their hospital stay. Despite their prevalence, PVCs are not benign devices, and the high number of PVCs inserted annually has resulted in serious catheter-related bloodstream infections and significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stay and increased healthcare system costs. To date, PVC infections have been under-evaluated. Most studies focus on central venous catheter rather than PVC-associated bloodstream infections. Risks associated with PVC infection must be addressed to reduce patient morbidity and associated costs of prolonged hospital admission and treatment. Discussion: This article discusses the sources and routes of PVC-associated infection and outlines known effective prevention and intervention strategies.

CONTEXT: The failure and complications of central venous access devices (CVADs) result in interrupted medical treatment, morbidity, and mortality for the patient. The resulting insertion of a new CVAD further contributes to risk and consumes extra resources. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing evidence of the incidence of CVAD failure and complications across CVAD types within pediatrics. DATA SOURCES: Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health databases were systematically searched up to January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were of cohort design and examined the incidence of CVAD failure and complications across CVAD type in pediatrics within the last 10 years. CVAD failure was defined as CVAD loss of function before the completion of necessary treatment, and complications were defined as CVAD-associated bloodstream infection, CVAD local infection, dislodgement, occlusion, thrombosis, and breakage. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted and critiqued for quality by 2 authors. RESULTS: Seventy-four cohort studies met the inclusion criteria, with mixed quality of reporting and methods. Overall, 25% of CVADs failed before completion of therapy (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.9%–29.2%) at a rate of 1.97 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.71–2.23). The failure per CVAD device was highest proportionally in hemodialysis catheters (46.4% [95% CI 29.6%–63.6%]) and per 1000 catheter days in umbilical catheters (28.6 per 1000 catheter days [95% CI 17.4–39.8]). Totally implanted devices had the lowest rate of failure per 1000 catheter days (0.15 [95% CI 0.09–0.20]). LIMITATIONS: The inclusion of nonrandomized and noncomparator studies may have affected the robustness of the research. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD failure and complications in pediatrics are a significant burden on the health care system internationally.

Background The reported incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) failure has been as high as 69%. This is in part due to inadequate stabilisation or securement to the skin, which allows micro-motion of the catheter within the vein. Methods A pilot open randomised controlled trial of 300 patients was conducted in the medical and surgical wards of a large tertiary hospital. A superiority parallel pragmatic design was used. Eligible patients over the age of 16 years were randomised using a centralised service (randomly varied block sizes and 1:1 ratio) to have PIV dressings of either (i) a bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU, standard care) or (ii) the integrated securement device (ISD). Allocation was concealed until entry. The primary outcome of feasibility addressed eligibility, consent, protocol adherence and retention rates. All-cause PIV failure was an additional primary outcome. This was a composite of infection (laboratory-confirmed local or bloodstream infection), occlusion or infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis and thrombosis. Group comparisons were by proportions, incidence rates per 1000 PIV days and hazard ratios. Secondary outcomes were local or bloodstream infection, occlusion or infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, thrombosis, PIV dwell time, safety and adverse events and patient satisfaction with study products. Analysis was by intention to treat and the patient was the unit of measurement. Multivariable modelling was undertaken. Results Feasibility outcomes were 91% of screened patients were eligible, 98% of invited patients consented, 100% of randomised participants received the allocated intervention on insertion and 1/300 (

Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are essential invasive devices, with 2 billion PVCs sold each year. The comparative efficacy of expert versus generalist inserter models for successful PVC insertion and subsequent reliable vascular access is unknown. Methods A single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 138 medical/surgical patients was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Australia to compare PVC insertion by (1) a vascular access specialist (VAS) or (2) any nursing or medical clinician (generalist model). The primary outcome was the feasibility of a larger RCT as established by predetermined criteria (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence). Secondary outcomes were PVC failure: phlebitis, infiltration/extravasation, occlusion, accidental removal or partial dislodgement, local infection or catheter-related bloodstream infection; dwell time; insertion success, insertion attempts; patient satisfaction; and procedural cost-effectiveness. Results Feasibility outcomes were achieved: 92% of screened patients were eligible; two patients refused participation; there was no attrition or missing outcome data. PVC failure was higher with generalists (27/50, 54%) than with VASs (33/69, 48%) (228 versus 217 per 1000 PVC days; incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.61–1.80). There were no local or PVC-related infections in either group. All PVCs (n = 69) were successfully inserted in the VAS group. In the generalist group, 19 (28%) patients did not have a PVC inserted. There were inadequate data available for the cost-effectiveness analysis, but the mean insertion procedure time was 2 min in the VAS group and 11 min in the generalist group. Overall satisfaction with the PVC was measured on an 11-point scale (0 = not satisfied and 10 = satisfied) and was higher in the VAS group (n = 43; median = 7) compared to the generalist group (n = 20; median = 4.5). The multivariable model identified medical diagnosis and bed-bound status as being significantly associated with higher PVC failure, and securement with additional non-sterile tape was significantly associated with lower PVC failure. Conclusion This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility and need for a large, multicentre RCT to test these PVC insertion models. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001675415. Registered on 6 December 2016.

This study was undertaken to calculate the incidence of 8 signs and symptoms used for the diagnosis of phlebitis with peripheral intravenous catheters, or short peripheral catheters, and the level of correlation between them. A total of 22 789 daily observations of 6 signs (swelling, erythema, leakage, palpable venous cord, purulent discharge, and warmth) and 2 symptoms (pain and tenderness) were analyzed of 5907 catheter insertion sites. Most signs and symptoms of phlebitis occurred only occasionally or rarely; the incidence of tenderness was highest (5.7%). Correlations were mostly low; warmth correlated strongly with tenderness, swelling, and erythema.

Introduction Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in hospitals. However, PIVC complications are common, with failures leading to treatment delays, additional procedures, patient pain and discomfort, increased clinician workload and substantially increased healthcare costs. Recent evidence suggests integrated PIVC systems may be more effective than traditional non-integrated PIVC systems in reducing phlebitis, infiltration and costs and increasing functional dwell time. The study aim is to determine the efficacy, cost–utility and acceptability to patients and professionals of an integrated PIVC system compared with a non-integrated PIVC system. Methods and analysis Two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of integrated versus non-integrated PIVC systems to compare effectiveness on clinical and economic outcomes. Recruitment of 1560 patients over 2 years, with randomisation by a centralised service ensuring allocation concealment. Primary outcomes: catheter failure (composite endpoint) for reasons of: occlusion, infiltration/extravasation, phlebitis/thrombophlebitis, dislodgement, localised or catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Secondary outcomes: first time insertion success, types of PIVC failure, device colonisation, insertion pain, functional dwell time, adverse events, mortality, cost–utility and consumer acceptability. One PIVC per patient will be included, with intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline group comparisons will be made for potentially clinically important confounders. The proportional hazards assumption will be checked, and Cox regression will test the effect of group, patient, device and clinical variables on failure. An as-treated analysis will assess the effect of protocol violations. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests will compare failure by group over time. Secondary endpoints will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval from the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/QRBW/527), Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2017/002) and the South Metropolitan Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2016–239). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number ACTRN12617000089336.

Summary Background Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings. Methods We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987. Findings Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference −4·5% [95% CI −11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (–2·7% [–9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (–1·2% [–7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.