Search

Background: Use of PICCs has been rising since 2001. They are used when long-term intravenous access is needed and for blood draws in patients with difficult venous access. Objective: To determine which risk factors contribute to inappropriate PICC line insertion defined as removal of a PICC within five days of insertion for reasons other than a PICC complication. Design: Retrospective, observational study. Setting: Tertiary-care, Level 1 trauma center. Patients: Adult patients with a PICC removed 1/1/2017 to 5/4/2020. Measurements: Frequency of PICC removal within five days of insertion and associated risk factors for early removal. Results: Between 1/1/2017 and 5/4/2020, 995 of 5348 PICCs inserted by the IV nursing team were removed within five days (19%). In 2017, 5 of 429 PICCs developed a central line-associated infection (1.2%) and 29 of 429 PICCs developed symptomatic venous thromboembolism (6.7%). Patients with PICCs whose primary service was in an ICU were independently at higher risk of early removal (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14, 1.83); weekday insertion was independently associated with a lower likelihood of early removal compared to weekend insertion (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.49, 0.75). Limitation: PICC removal after discharge was not assessed and paper records were likely incomplete and biased. Conclusion: Nearly one in five PICCs were removed within five days. Patients whose primary team was in an ICU and PICCs ordered on weekends were at independently higher risk of early removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A majority of academic medical centers (AMCs) have now adopted conflict of interest policies (COI) to address relationships with pharmaceutical and device industries that can increase the risk of bias in patient care, education and research. However, AMCs may have little information on the impact of their policies. This paper provides a new method, which is a free, publicly-available survey, to fill this information gap and improve COI programs at AMCs. Methods & findings: The survey, piloted in three AMCs and designed in collaboration with national conflicts of interest policy experts, covers a range of universal compliance-related concerns, which allows institutions to tailor questions to align with their own policies and culture. The survey was low-burden, and provided important data for these AMCs to evaluate their policies. A descriptive analysis of the pooled pilot site data (n = 1578) was performed, which found that a majority of respondents did not have financial ties with industry and a majority was satisfied with specific COI policies at their institutions. The analysis also showed that the survey is sensitive to differences that AMCs will find meaningful. For instance, individuals with industry ties were significantly more likely than individuals without ties to think that COI policies unnecessarily hindered interactions with industry (p = .004), were ineffective at reducing harm to patients (p < .001), and were ineffective in reducing bias in medical education (p>.001). Conclusion: The survey is now free and publicly available for use by any institution. AMCs can use the results to update and refine policies, and to provide ongoing education regarding existing policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Publication of scientific research papers is important for professionals working in academic medical centres. Quantitative measures of scientific output determine status and prestige, and serve to rank universities as well as individuals. The pressure to generate maximum scientific output is high, and quantitative aspects may tend to dominate over qualitative ones. How this pressure influences professionals’ perception of science and their personal well-being is unknown. Methods and Findings: We performed an online survey inviting all medical professors (n = 1206) of the 8 academic medical centres in The Netherlands to participate. They were asked to fill out 2 questionnaires; a validated Publication Pressure Questionnaire and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. In total, 437 professors completed the questionnaires. among them, 54% judge that publication pressure ‘has become excessive’, 39% believe that publication pressure ‘affects the credibility of medical research’ and 26% judge that publication pressure has a ‘sickening effect on medical science’. The burn out questionnaire indicates that 24% of medical professors have signs of burn out. The number of years of professorship was significantly related with experiencing less publication pressure. Significant and strong associations between burn out symptoms and the level of perceived publication pressure were found. The main limitation is the possibility of response bias. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of medical professors believe that publication pressure has become excessive, and have a cynical view on the validity of medical science. These perceptions are statistically correlated to burn out symptoms. Further research should address the effects of publication pressure in more detail and identify alternative ways to stimulate the quality of medical science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]