Search

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 6

Supplementary Material 5

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 7

Supplementary Material 4

Supplementary Material 3

Additional file 2. STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies

Additional file 1.

Additional file 1: Table S1. The definition of phlebitis (INS). Table S2. The definition of each element of INS phlebitis definition. Table S3. Proportion and incidence of phlebitis per catheter. Table S4. Characteristics of phlebitis. Table S5. Sensitivity analysis of multivariable analysis for phlebitis using backward selection method. Figure S1. Spline curve of age and body mass index for the Occurrence of Phlebitis. a age, b body mass index, c APACHE II.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 2. TDF coding manual.

Additional file 1. Interview Topic Guide for Cardiac Surgeons, Cardiac Anaesthetists, and Perfusionists.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Costs associated with each study group: products and staff time and costs of responding to failure.

To improve arterial catheter (AC) securement and reduce AC failure; to assess feasibility of a large randomised controlled trial.A four-arm, parallel, randomised, controlled, non-blinded pilot trial with 195 intensive care patients taking part, in a tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia from May to November 2012.Standard polyurethane (SPU) dressing (controls); bordered polyurethane (BPU) + SPU dressing; tissue adhesive (TA) + SPU dressing; and sutureless securement device (SSD) + SPU dressing (no sutures used).AC failure, ie, complete dislodgement, occlusion (monitor failure, inability to infuse or fluid leaking), pain or infection (local or blood).Median AC dwell time was 26.2 hours and was comparable between groups. AC failure occurred in 26/195 patients (13%). AC failure was significantly worse with SPU dressings (10/47 [21%]) than with BPU + SPU dressings (2/ 43 [5%]; P = 0.03), but not significantly different to TA + SPU (6/56 [11%]; P = 0.18) or SSD + SPU (8/49 [16%]; P = 0.61). The dressing applied at AC insertion lasted until AC removal in 68% of controls; 56% of BPU + SPU dressings; 73% of TA + SPU dressings; and 80% of SSD + SPU dressings (all P0.05). There were no infections or serious adverse events. Patient and staff satisfaction with all products was high. Median costs (labour and materials) for securement per patient were significantly higher in all groups compared with the control group (SPU, $3.48 [IQR, $3.48-$9.79]; BPU + SPU, $5.07 [IQR, $5.07-$12.99]; SSD + SPU, $10.90 [IQR, $10.90-$10.90]; TA + SPU, $17.70 [IQR, $17.70-$38.36]; all P0.01).AC failure occurred significantly less often with BPU + SPU dressings than with SPU dressings. TA + SPU and SSD + SPU dressings should be further investigated and compared with BPU + SPU dressings as controls. The novel approach of TA + SPU dressings appeared safe and feasible.

For the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) to achieve its full impact, it is necessary for health practitioners to be trained and reliably funded to deliver research and translation alongside their clinical work.1 We offer insight into current systems, concerns and suggestions as this applies to clinical research in nursing and midwifery. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere. Aim: To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000–2021. Design: A scoping review of RCTs. Data Sources: Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. Review Methods: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR. Results: Our search yielded 186 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies. Conclusion: A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs. Patient or Public Contribution: This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable. Refereed/Peer-reviewed