Search

Background: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. Aim: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long‐term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. Design: Multi‐site, parallel, multi‐method, prospective cohort study. Methods: A multi‐site, multi‐method study was carried out in 2020–2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. Results: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow‐up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5–10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. Conclusion: Several recommendations were made to improve the end‐user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. Impact: Patient‐/parent‐reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record‐keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. Reporting Method: Not applicable. Patient Contribution: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to (i) capture clinicians' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the first Australian national peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) Clinical Care Standard, (ii) examine the instrument performance of the knowledge related questions and (iii) explore the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence among Australian ED clinicians. Methods: A cross‐sectional national online survey was conducted from March to June 2022, using a snowball sampling method. The survey used 5‐point Likert scales and multiple‐choice questions to capture respondents' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the Standard as well as the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence. Results: In total, 433 ED nurses and doctors responded. Although nearly half (n = 206, 47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 55.5–65.8) of respondents claimed that they were unfamiliar with the Standard, questions on PIVC knowledge yielded that most respondents had adequate knowledge of most of the key standards. Respondents' attitudes towards multiple intravenous insertion attempts and ongoing PIVC competency monitoring are not in agreement with the Standard. Self‐reported practices regarding routine insertion of idle catheters (55%; 95% CI 49.9–59.9), using antecubital fossa as the first insertion site (84%; 95% CI 80–87), insertion without confidence (46%; 95% CI 41.2–51.1) and lack of routine reviewing the ongoing needs of PIVC (40%; 95% CI 35.3–45.1) were not aligned with the Standard. Unawareness of the Standard and non‐practical recommendations were rated as the top barriers to Standard adherence. Conclusion: The findings of the survey suggest that the Standard may need modification to align with the needs of ED clinicians. Future studies need to explore the applicability and relevancy of some recommendations in the ED settings as they may cause low adherence to the Standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: Explore the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access and identify ideas and preferences for changes to clinical practice. Background: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion is one of the most common invasive procedures in hospitalised paediatric patients. Multiple insertion attempts in paediatric patients are common and associated with pain and distress. Little research has explored the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access nor sought to identify their suggestions to improve clinical practice. Design: Qualitative description. Methods: A purposive sampling approach was used to identify children and young people with experience of difficult venous access and their parents. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted, with sample size based on data saturation. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: There were 12 participants, seven parents and five children/young people (five parent/child dyads and two individual parents). Analysis of the data revealed three main themes: (1) Distress—before, during and after (2) Families navigating the system: the challenging journey from general clinician to specialist and (3) Difficult venous access impacts both treatment and life outside the hospital A pre‐determined theme, (4) Recommendations for good clinical practice is also described. Conclusions: Multiple attempts to insert a peripheral intravenous catheter are a source of substantial distress for children/young people, leading to treatment avoidance. Effective interpersonal skills, providing choice and avoiding frightening language are important to minimise distress. Clinicians without specialist training should assess each child's venous access experience and consider immediate referral to a specialist if they have a history of difficult venous access. Cultural change is required so clinicians and healthcare services recognise that repeated cannulation may be a source of psychological distress for children/young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to critically evaluate implementation frameworks, strategies and/or outcomes used to optimise peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care and/or promote guideline adherence. Background: Although a considerable volume of research has investigated the effectiveness of PIVC interventions and treatments to promote performance and prevent harm, how to best implement this evidence into dynamic clinical settings and populations is not well understood. Implementation science is central to translating evidence‐based knowledge to the bedside; however, there is a gap in identifying the best implementation framework, strategies and/or outcomes to optimise PIVC care and/or guideline adherence. Design: A systematic review. Method: The review was conducted using innovative automation tools. Five databases and clinical trial registries were searched on 14 October 2021. Qualitative and quantitative PIVC intervention studies reporting implementation strategies were included in the review. Data were extracted independently by experienced researchers in pairs. The Mixed Method Appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. The systematic review was reported following the PRISMA checklist. Results: Of 2189 references identified, 27 studies were included in the review. Implementation frameworks were used in 30% (n = 8) of studies, with most used during the preparation (n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase (n = 7, 26%) and then evaluation phase (n = 4, 15%). Multifaceted strategies were commonly adopted (n = 24, 89%) to promote PIVC care or study interventions which were clinician (n = 25, 93%) and patient‐targeted (n = 15, 56%). The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (n = 13, 48%) and adoption (n = 6, 22%). Most studies were scored as low quality (n = 18, 67%). Conclusion: We call for researchers and clinicians to work together and use implementation science frameworks to guide study design, implementation and evaluation in future PIVC studies, to improve evidence translation and thereby improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ultrasound-guided insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) is an alternative to traditional anatomical landmark-based insertion. However, data on its performance in paediatric patients of varying levels of difficult intravenous access are limited. The researchers hypothesise that ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion will increase first-attempt success compared with landmark technique. This randomised, parallel-group, single-centre, superiority trial commenced recruiting in July 2021, including hospitalised children (aged 0 (>37 weeks gestation) to 18 years) requiring a PIVC. It will recruit 180 children, stratified by degree of perceived difficulty, and centrally randomised into two groups (ratio 1:1). The primary outcome is first-attempt PIVC insertion success. Secondary outcomes include total number of PIVC insertion attempts, PIVC insertion failure, post-insertion complications, dwell time, patient/parent satisfaction, and healthcare costs. The current study will inform the superiority of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion in comparison with landmark technique. Adoption by healthcare facilities might improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most used invasive medical device in healthcare. Yet around half of insertion attempts are unsuccessful leading to delayed medical treatments and patient discomfort of harm. Ultrasound-guided PIVC (USGPIVC) insertion is an evidence-based intervention shown to improve insertion success especially in patients with Difficult IntraVenous Access (BMC Health Serv Res 22:220, 2022), however the implementation in some healthcare settings remains suboptimal. This study aims to co-design interventions that optimise ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in patients with DIVA, implement and evaluate these initiatives and develop scale up activities. Methods: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in three hospitals (two adult, one paediatric) in Queensland, Australia. The intervention will be rolled out across 12 distinct clusters (four per hospital). Intervention development will be guided by Michie's Behavior Change Wheel with the aim to increase local staff capability, opportunity, and motivation for appropriate, sustainable adoption of USGPIVC insertion. Eligible clusters include all wards or departments where > 10 PIVCs/week are typically inserted. All clusters will commence in the control (baseline) phase, then, one cluster per hospital will step up every two months, as feasible, to the implementation phase, where the intervention will be rolled out. Implementation strategies are tailored for each hospital by local investigators and advisory groups, through context assessments, staff surveys, and stakeholder interviews and informed by extensive consumer interviews and consultation. Outcome measures align with the RE-AIM framework including clinical-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., first-time PIVC insertion success for DIVA patients [primary outcome], number of insertion attempts); implementation outcomes (e.g., intervention fidelity, readiness assessment) and cost effectiveness outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework will be used to report the intervention as it was implemented; how people participated in and responded to the intervention; contextual influences and how the theory underpinning the intervention was realised and delivered at each site. A sustainability assessment will be undertaken at three- and six-months post intervention. Discussion: Study findings will help define systematic solutions to implement DIVA identification and escalation tools aiming to address consumer dissatisfaction with current PIVC insertion practices. Such actionable knowledge is critical for implementation of scale-up activities. Trial registration: Prospectively registered (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12621001497897). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To synthesise evidence related to medical adhesive tapes and supplementary securement products for peripheral intravenous catheters in adults, to prevent complications and device failure. Design: Integrative review informed by Whittemore and Knafl and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Data sources. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, EMBASE/MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health were searched from 2000–21 September 2020. Review Methods. Studies enrolling hospitalised participants >16 years with peripheral intravenous catheters secured by medical adhesive tapes, or supplementary products (bandage, splint and sutureless securement device), were eligible. Quality appraisal was performed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklists. Results: Nineteen studies met criteria, including 43,683 peripheral intravenous catheters. Quality appraisal identified high or unclear risk of bias in 58% of studies. Nonsterile tape was the most common intervention tested (14 studies), alone or in multiproduct combinations. Nonsterile tape directly over insertion sites was associated with increased PIVC failure and complications. Sutureless securement devices potentially reduce failure and complications. Multiproduct combinations were very common. Practice recommendations regarding other tapes and secondary securement products are challenging, due to conflicting, or lack of, evidence. Conclusion: Tapes and secondary securement product evidence are limited, and over half of the studies are of low methodological quality. This review found nonsterile tape was associated with increased failure and complications; multiproduct dressing and securement bundles were prevalent; and significant evidence gaps exist particularly regarding bandages and splints. The results provide nurses with evidence of medical adhesive tapes and supplementary product effectiveness for peripheral intravenous catheter securement, and future research directions to reduce unacceptably high failure and complication rates. Larger rigorously conducted randomised controlled trials are needed to add to current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]