Search

Background: Occupational violence (OV) is a priority issue that significantly affects the safety of nurses, leading to staff burnout and poor retention issues. Security personnel are common in inpatient settings, yet there is limited research on their role, function, and impacts. The study aims to qualitatively evaluate a novel security role to reduce OV in inpatient settings. Methods : This qualitative study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Queensland. A novel security role (Ambassador) was piloted in three inpatient wards over 6 months in 2020 to mitigate OV risk. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. All interviews were audio recorded. Interview transcripts were transcribed. Deductive analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to identify the experiences and perceptions of the participants. Findings : 17 participants were interviewed. Five themes were identified including program characteristics, internal drivers, external drivers, individual experience, and implementation process. An Ambassador proactively engages with patients and visitors and employs behavioral strategies to de-escalate or redirect persons of concern. Participants considered Ambassadors to be important members of the health care team who supported the provision of patient and family-centered care. Successful implementation was said to require collaboration between clinical and security services and a small agile project team with authority and autonomy. Conclusion/Application to practice : This study provides many insights into the successful implementation of a novel security role in acute hospital settings. More research is needed on the effectiveness, appropriateness, feasibility, and cost of different security models. [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]