Search

Background: Mechanical force skin injuries are common for critical care patients, especially neonates. Currently, identification and severity assessments of injuries are dependent on clinical experience and/or utilization of severity tools. Compared with adults, neonates sustain skin injuries in different anatomical locations and have decreased layers of healthy tissue (from 0.9 to 1.2 mm) creating questions around direct application of adult injury severity scales reliant on visual assessment. Aim: The aim of this scoping review (ScR) was to investigate severity scales used to report hospital acquired skin injuries for neonates. Methods: This study utilized the 2015 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses for Scoping Reviews extension. PubMed, CINAHL, COCHRANE Central, Scopus, and the reference lists of included studies were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2023, that included severity scales use within neonatal population. Two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction, and quality assessment. Results: A systematic database search returned 1163 records. After full test review of 109 studies, 35 studies were included. A majority of studies included were cohort or action research and conducted in the United States of America. Most studies (57%, n = 20) reported skin injuries acquired throughout the body, 14 (40%) of the studies reported the nasal area alone and one study reported no anatomical location. A total of nine severity scales or combination of scales were utilized within studies (n = 31) and four studies did not report a scale. Various versions of scales from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 16), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (n = 8) or Neonatal Skin Condition Score (n = 4) were reported, compared with locally developed classifications/scales (n = 4). Scales were predominantly of ordinal grouping (74%, n = 26) or categorical assessment (14%, n = 5). Only one scale from 2004 was validated for neonates. Conclusion: Neonatal skin injuries will continue to be reported subjectively until severity scales are consistently applied or other measurements are identified to support assessment. Additionally, without skin injury assessment uniformity, critical examination of effectiveness of skin care treatment practices will have subjective comparison. This review suggests there is a need for consistent skin assessment and severity scales that are valid for the neonatal population and their unique skin considerations. Relevance to Clinical Practice: In the context of neonatal skin, with its unique characteristics and heightened risk for injury, clinicians must stage, categorise, and describe injury locations to provide objective information on injury severity. Given the risk for injuries across the entire body, including mucous membranes, describing the depth of the injury is essential regardless of the anatomical site. Although not originally designed for this population, a modified version of the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) classification system, which incorporates additional classifications (e.g., skin tears), remains the most applicable severity assessment system currently available. This should be supplemented by clinical images or detailed descriptive language (e.g., subtle redness) until rigorously validated severity and assessment scales, based on neonatal data, are developed—particularly for infants born at less than 27 weeks gestation. [Correction added on 25 October 2024, after first online publication: The Relevance to Clinical Practice subsection in Abstract has been added on this version.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Aim: To test the feasibility of a study protocol that compared the efficacy of neutral‐ and negative‐pressure needleless connectors (NCs). Design: A single‐centre, parallel‐group, pilot randomised control trial. Methods: Our study compared neutral‐(intervention) and negative‐pressure (control) NCs among adult patients in an Australian hospital. The primary feasibility outcome was measured against predetermined criteria (e.g. eligibility, attrition). The primary efficacy outcome was all‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, analysed as time‐to‐event data. Results: In total, 201 (100 control; 101 intervention) participants were enrolled between March 2020 and September 2020. All feasibility criteria were met except eligibility, which was lower (78%) than the 90% criterion. All‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure was significantly higher in the intervention group (39%) compared to control (19%). Conclusion: With minor modifications to participant screening for eligibility, this randomised control trial is feasible for a large multicentre randomised control trial. The neutral NC was associated with an increased risk of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: There are several NC designs available, often identified by their mechanism of pressure (positive, negative and neutral). However, NCs can contribute to peripheral intravenous catheter failure. This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare neutral and negative NC designs. Negative pressure NCs had lower PIVC failure compared to neutral NCs, however the results might not be generalisable to other brands or treatment settings. Further high‐quality research is needed to explore NC design. Reporting Method: Study methods and results reported in adherence to the CONSORT Statement. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vascular access devices play vital roles within neonatal care. We aimed to identify neonatal vascular access device insertion and management practices, and describe the incidence and risk factors for complication development. This is a prospective cohort study of neonates requiring vascular access devices over 3 months in an Australian quaternary-referral neonatal intensive care unit. In addition to describing current practices, primary outcomes were device failure, complications, and skin complications. Results are reported using descriptive statistics and with risk factors calculated via Cox proportional hazards regression. A total of 104 neonates required 302 vascular access devices, over 1375 catheter days. Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) were most used (n = 186; 62%), followed by umbilical venous catheters (n = 52; 17%). Insertion attempts were often undocumented; but for those recorded, 5% of devices (n = 15) required 4 attempts or more. Device failure occurred in 28% (n = 82), at an incidence rate of 62.5 per 1000 catheter days (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.775.9). Failure was most frequent in PIVCs (37%; n = 68), peripheral arterial catheters (33%; n = 2), and peripherally inserted central catheters (20%; n = 6). Infiltration and extravasation were the most frequent cause of PIVC failure (12%; n = 35). A birth weight less than 1500 g was associated with a significant decrease in PIVC failure (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.34-0.99). [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]

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]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. Aims: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). Findings: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001).Conclusion: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ultrasound‐guided peripheral intravenous cannulation (USGPIVC) benefits patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) through visualising otherwise non‐visible and non‐palpable veins. Supervised live‐case training is an important component of learning this skill, but supervisor availability can present a barrier limiting or delaying staff completing their training. Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the first‐attempt success rate of newly trained USGPIVC inserters using remote supervision and timely written feedback based on app‐based screen recordings taken during insertion. Secondary aims were overall procedural success, and inserter and patient experiences. Methods: This study is an observational cohort study carried out between October and December 2021. Fourteen newly trained junior medical officers (JMOs) were eligible to utilise USGPIVC on a minimum of five consenting patients while simultaneously recording the ultrasound screen during insertion to capture their technique. Feedback was generated following expert review of these recordings against a standardised feedback tool. Results: Average first‐attempt success was 71% (n = 72) in the 102 patients recruited. The average time for JMOs to receive feedback was 30 h, and 13 JMOs (93%) felt well supported and completed the remote training pathway. The majority of patients were female (n = 59; 58%), were aged 41–80 years (n = 75; 74%) and had ≥2 risk factors for DIVA (n = 57; 56%). Conclusions: First‐attempt success rates were similar when comparing remote supervision used in this study to direct supervision used by other studies.This finding supports incorporating remote supervision into training guidelines for USGPIVC as an alternative method of supervision, particularly when supervisor availability is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To determine peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) characteristics, complications and risk factors among patients in cancer units. Methods A secondary analysis of a global, cross-sectional study (127 hospitals in 24 countries). Participants (≥18 years) admitted to cancer units were assessed once for PIVC characteristics and the presence of complications. Variables included patient demographics, device characteristics, treatment details, and device and/or site complications. PIVC characteristics were presented using qualitative descriptors; mixed-effects logistic regression models determined risk factors for PIVC complications. Results: In total, 1,807 participants (1,812 PIVCs) were included; 12% (n=215) of PIVCs presented with complications. Risk factors included: insertion by doctors; insertion in ED and ambulance/other locations; poor PIVC dressing integrity; dwell time ≥49 hours; and administration of colloids/blood products and antiemetics. Conclusions At least one in ten PIVCs in cancer units present with complications; regular PIVC assessment and improved dressing integrity is likely to reduce risk and improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aim of this study was to examine patient perceptions regarding vascular access quality measurement. Methods. A web-based, cross-sectional survey was performed using a convenience sample of healthcare consumers with vascular access experience, recruited from September 2019 to June 2020. Survey respondents were asked to rate the perceived importance of 50 vascular access data items, including patient demographics, clinical and device characteristics, and insertion, management and complication data. Data were ranked using a five-point Likert scale (1, least important; 5, most important), and are reported as median values. Respondents proposed additional items and explored broader perspectives using free-text responses, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results. In all, 68 consumers completed the survey. Participants were primarily female (82%), aged 40-49 years (29%) and living in Australia or New Zealand (84%). All respondents indicated that measuring the quality of vascular access care was important. Of the 50 items, 37 (74%) were perceived as 'most important' (median score 5), with measures of quality (i.e. outcomes and complications) rated highly (e.g. thrombosis and primary blood stream infection). Participants proposed 16 additional items. 'Gender' received the lowest perceived importance score (median score 3). Two themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of broader perspectives: (1) measurement of vascular access device complication severity and associated factors; and (2) patient experience. Conclusion. Measuring vascular access quality and safety is important to consumers. Outcome and complication measures were rated 'most important', with respondents identifying a need for increased monitoring of their overall vascular access journey through the health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women. Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time. Results: Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC. Conclusions: Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications. Design: This systematic review is reported by means of the Cochrane process for randomized controlled trials and the Meta‐analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology for cohort studies. Data sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference list of included studies were searched from 2000 ‐April 2019. Review Methods: Using a purpose designed data extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction and quality assessment. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled after Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation using random‐effects meta‐analysis; estimates of heterogeneity were taken from inverse‐variance fixed‐effect models. Results: Seventy observational studies and 33 randomized controlled trials were included (76,977 catheters). Peripheral intravenous catheter‐related complications were as follows: phlebitis (with definition) 19.3%, phlebitis (without definition) 4.5%, infiltration/extravasation 13.7%, occlusion 8%, leakage 7.3%, pain 6.4% and dislodgement 6.0%. Subgroup analysis found infiltration/extravasation for emergency department‐inserted catheters was significantly higher (25.2%; p =.022) than for those inserted in other departments and pain was significantly higher (p <.001) in countries with developing economies compared with developed economies. Conclusion: Peripheral intravenous catheter complications are unacceptably common worldwide. This review suggests substantial and multi‐specialty efforts are needed to address the sequalae associated with complications. The potential benefits for patients and health services are considerable if complications are reduced. Impact: Peripheral intravenous complications interrupt important treatment which can be distressing for patients and result in longer hospital stays with increased healthcare costs. This review found phlebitis and infiltration are the most prevalent reason for catheter failure. These results provide nurses with a strong evidence base for the development of effective interventions for practice which are vital for preventing poor outcomes for patients with peripheral intravenous catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, there has been a shift in health care delivery, with an increasing emphasis on avoiding hospital admissions and providing treatment such as intravenous antibiotics for patients at home, using peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). However, there is inadequate data to demonstrate if rates of PICC failure are similar for hospital inpatients, currently understood to be between 7% and 36%, than those cared for at home. The objective of this study was to identify prevalence, dwell time, and complications associated with PICCs in the home setting. This single-center, retrospective cohort study of adults treated by the "Hospital in the Home" (HITH) program in Queensland, was conducted between June 1, 2017 and June 15, 2018. Clinical data were collected for patient and PICC characteristics. Variables were described as frequencies and proportions, means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges. In total, 304 patients treated by HITH during this timeframe, and 164 (54%) patients with 181 PICCs were included in this study. These patients were predominately male (n = 105, 64%), with a mean age of 54 years. The most common reason for admission was a wound infection and/or bone infection (n = 120, 33%). Most PICCs were single lumen (n = 120; 67%), inserted in the basilic vein (n = 137; 80%) by nurses (n = 122; 67%). Peripherally inserted central catheter failure occurred in 10% (n = 19); the most common complications were dislodgement (n = 9; 5%) and thrombosis (n = 4; 2%). There were no confirmed catheter-related blood stream infections. Peripherally inserted central catheter failure rates are similar between hospitalized inpatients and those cared for at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956. Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.009–0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95 % CI: 3.47–5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150 % of peripheral intravenous catheters (95 % CI: 0.047–0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95 % CI: 49.2–86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4 % of catheters (95 % CI: 31.7–41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95 % CI: 4.27–4.57). Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insertion of a 16 or 18 gauge peripheral intravenous catheter is a potentially painful intervention but one frequently experienced by pregnant women when admitted to hospital. Although the rationale for this practice is 'in case of an emergency bleed', evidence for using large‐bore catheters in this population is absent. Aims: (i) To identify the proportion of 18 gauge or larger peripheral catheters inserted into maternity patients; and (ii) to investigate the proportion of women who require blood products during their perinatal period. Materials and Methods: Data from a sub‐set of maternity patients who were included in a study of risk factors for peripheral intravenous access failure were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred and fourteen catheters were inserted in 95 women. Of the 95 first‐inserted catheters, 84 (88.4%) were 16 or 18 gauge and 69 (82.1%) of these were placed in the hand or wrist. Four women (4%) received blood products, all were for non‐urgent transfusions. Conclusion: Postpartum haemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion remains a relatively rare event. Comprehensive risk assessment should be undertaken before inserting large‐bore catheters in perinatal women. Small veins in the hand and wrist should not be used for large bore catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Many peripheral intravenous catheter ( PIVC) infusion phlebitis scales and definitions are used internationally, although no existing scale has demonstrated comprehensive reliability and validity. We examined inter-rater agreement between registered nurses on signs, symptoms and scales commonly used in phlebitis assessment. Methods Seven PIVC-associated phlebitis signs/symptoms (pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, palpable venous cord, purulent discharge and warmth) were observed daily by two raters (a research nurse and registered nurse). These data were modelled into phlebitis scores using 10 different tools. Proportions of agreement (e.g. positive, negative), observed and expected agreements, Cohen's kappa, the maximum achievable kappa, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa were calculated. Results Two hundred ten patients were recruited across three hospitals, with 247 sets of paired observations undertaken. The second rater was blinded to the first's findings. The Catney and Rittenberg scales were the most sensitive (phlebitis in >20% of observations), whereas the Curran, Lanbeck and Rickard scales were the most restrictive (≤2% phlebitis). Only tenderness and the Catney (one of pain, tenderness, erythema or palpable cord) and Rittenberg scales (one of erythema, swelling, tenderness or pain) had acceptable (more than two-thirds, 66.7%) levels of inter-rater agreement. Conclusions Inter-rater agreement for phlebitis assessment signs/symptoms and scales is low. This likely contributes to the high degree of variability in phlebitis rates in literature. We recommend further research into assessment of infrequent signs/symptoms and the Catney or Rittenberg scales. New approaches to evaluating vein irritation that are valid, reliable and based on their ability to predict complications need exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To examine the use, management, documentation and complications for intravascular devices in cardiac, medical and surgical inpatients. Methods. A point prevalence survey was undertaken in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Results. Of the 327 patients assessed, 192 (58.7%) had one or more devices in situ. Of the 220 devices, 190 (86.4%) were peripheral venous catheters, 25 (11.4%) were peripherally inserted central catheters and five (2.3%) were central venous catheters. Sixty-two of 220 devices (28.2%) were in situ without a clear purpose, whereas 54 (24.7%) had one or more complications, such as redness, pain, tracking, oedema or oozing. There was no documentation on the daily patient care record to indicate that a site assessment had occurred within the past 8 h for 25% of the devices in situ. Conclusions. The present study identified several problems and highlighted areas for improvement in the management and documentation for intravascular devices. Ongoing education, promoting good clinical practice and reauditing, can be applied to improve the management of devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peripheral intravenous catheters are an essential medical device which are prone to complications and failure. Identify patient, provider and device risk factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure as well as individual complications: phlebitis, infiltration/occlusion, and dislodgement to improve patient outcomes. Secondary analysis of twelve prospective studies performed between 2008 and 2020. Australian metropolitan and regional hospitals including one paediatric hospital. Participants were from medical, surgical, haematology, and oncology units. Multilevel mixed-effects parametric survival regression was used to identify factors associated with all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, phlebitis, occlusion/infiltration, and dislodgement. We studied patient (e.g., age, gender), device (e.g., gauge), and provider (e.g., inserting clinician) variables. Stepwise regression involved clinically and p <0.20 significant variables entered into the multivariable model. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); p <0.01 was considered statistically significant. Of 11,830 peripheral intravenous catheters (8,200 participants) failure occurred in 36% (n = 4,263). Occlusion/infiltration incidence was 23% (n = 2,767), phlebitis 12% (n = 1,421), and dislodgement 7% (n = 779) of catheters. Patient factors significantly associated with failure and complications were: female gender (phlebitis; (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.72–2.27), (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33–1.58), (failure; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26–1.46); and each year increase in age (phlebitis; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.98–0.99), (failure; 0.99 HR, 95% CI 0.99–0.99). The strongest provider risk factor was intravenous antibiotics (infiltration/occlusion; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27–1.53), (phlebitis; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18–1.56), (failure; HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17–1.36). Catheters inserted by vascular access teams were less likely to dislodge (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42–0.67). Device risk factors most associated with all-cause failure were wrist/hand (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.23–1.46), antecubital fossa peripheral intravenous catheters (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16–1.44) and 22/24 gauge (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12–1.45) catheters. Factors identified, including the protective aspect of vascular access team insertion, and high catheter failure associated with intravenous antibiotic administration, will allow targeted updates of peripheral intravenous catheter guidelines and models of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Up to 85% of hospital in-patients will require some form of vascular access device to deliver essential fluids, drug therapy, nutrition and blood products, or facilitate sampling. The failure rate of these devices is unacceptably high, with 20–69% of peripheral intravenous catheters and 15–66% of central venous catheters failing due to occlusion, depending on the device, setting and population. A range of strategies have been developed to maintain device patency, including intermittent flushing. However, there is limited evidence informing flushing practice and little is known about the current flushing practices. Objective The aim of the study was to improve our understanding of current flushing practices for vascular access devices through a survey of practice. Method A cross-sectional survey of nurses and midwives working in the State of Queensland, Australia was conducted using a 25-item electronic survey that was distributed via the local union membership database. Results A total of 1178 surveys were completed and analysed, with n = 1068 reporting peripheral device flushing and n = 584 reporting central device flushing. The majority of respondents were registered nurses (55%) caring for adult patients (63%). A large proportion of respondents (72% for peripheral, 742/1028; 80% for central, 451/566) were aware of their facility's policy for vascular access device flushing. Most nurses reported using sodium chloride 0.9% for flushing both peripheral (96%, 987/1028) and central devices (75%, 423/566). Some concentration of heparin saline was used by 25% of those flushing central devices. A 10-mL syringe was used by most respondents for flushing; however, 24% of respondents used smaller syringes in the peripheral device group. Use of prefilled syringes (either commercially prepared sterile or prefilled in the workplace) was limited to 10% and 11% respectively for each group. The frequency of flushing varied widely, with the most common response being pro re nata (23% peripheral and 21% central), or 6 hourly (23% peripheral and 22% central). Approximately half of respondents stated that there was no medical order or documentation for either peripheral or central device flushing. Conclusions Flushing practices for vascular access device flushing appear to vary widely. Specific areas of practice that warrant further investigation include questions about the efficacy of heparin for central device flushing, increasing adherence to the recommended 10 mL diameter syringe use, increased use of prefilled flush syringes, identifying and standardising optimal volumes and frequency of flushing, and improving documentation of flush orders and administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]