Search

Background Data 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. Methods A 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. Results A 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. Conclusion We 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2016, a UK vessel health and preservation (VHP) framework was developed to support healthcare staff to select the most appropriate vascular access device for patients requiring intravenous therapy. The VHP framework was based on available evidence and expert consensus. The VHP was based on available evidence and expert consensus. Development of the VHP 2020 Framework: A multidisciplinary team reviewed the original UK VHP framework and considered new published evidence, national and international guidelines and expert opinion. A literature search was performed using Cinahl and Medline, incorporating a variety of terms linked to vascular access devices, assessment and selection. Articles published in and after 2014 in English were included. Twelve articles were found to be relevant including three evidence-based guidelines, two randomised control trials and one systematic review. Findings: Three main studies provided the evidence for the update: the MAGIC study that assessed the appropriateness of peripherally inserted central catheters in patients; a study that utilised the 'A-DIVA scale' to predict the likelihood of difficult venous access; and a study that incorporated an 'I-DECIDED tool' for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making for device removal. In addition, published guidelines provided evidence that the original advice on appropriate osmolarity of medicines for peripheral administration needed updating. Conclusion: The 2020 UK VHP framework reflects latest evidence-based research and guidelines, providing healthcare staff updated guidance to assist in maintaining good practice in vascular access assessment and device selection and patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vascular access is an important part of many patient care management plans, but has unwanted risks. A working group led by the Infection Prevention Society (IPS) produced a Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) Framework. Based on current evidence, a framework was developed for frontline staff to assess and select the best vascular access device to meet the individual patient’s needs and to preserve veins for future use. Methods: Using the Outcome Logic Model, we conducted an evaluation of the short- and medium-term outcomes with regards to the impact and success of the VHP Framework. Results: This evaluation found that many respondents were aware of the framework and were using it in a range of different ways. Participants saw the framework as being most beneficial to help decisions on device choice and peripheral vein assessment. However, the framework has not fully reached its intended audience. Discussion: Many positive outcomes were reported as a result of using the VHP Framework including improving clinical practice as it relates to the VHP elements. However, further work is required to find the tools to extend the reach of the framework and assist healthcare teams to be able to fully implement it within their clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]