Hospital-wide survey of the use of central venous catheters

The CLABSI Playbook: Design and Implementation of a Multipronged Approach to Decrease CLABSIs

ABSTRACT

Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs) are a quality marker for the critical care environment. They have become an area of particular interest because they cost the healthcare system close to a billion dollars per year and have a significant impact on patient safety. Through a preliminary analysis of our system's CLABSI rates, we found significantly higher rates than the national average, prompting further investigation. We decreased our CLABSI rate by over 40% from 2021 (1.6 per 1,000 line days) to the fourth quarter of 2022 (0.91) and kept the rate below or around the national rate (0.86) for the last three quarters of 2022. Through looking at current outcome data, identifying key stakeholders, developing dedicated committees, conducting root cause analyses, monitoring progress, adjusting procedures, scaling to the system, and continuously monitoring and reporting results, we have shown the efficacy of this kind of quality improvement structure and strive to reduce our hospital system's impact on avoidable healthcare-associated patient harm.

Trendelenburg position for internal jugular vein catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To determine the effect of Trendelenburg position on the diameter or cross-section area of the internal jugular vein (IJV) a systematic review and metanalysis was performed. Studies that evaluated the cross-sectional area (CSA) and anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the right internal jugular vein (RIJV) with ultrasonography in supine and any degree of head-down tilt (Trendelenburg position) were analyzed. A total of 22 articles (613 study subjects) were included. A >5° Trendelenburg position statistically increases RIJV CSA and AP diameter. Further inclination from 10° does not statistically benefit IJV size. This position should be recommended for CVC placement, when patient conditions allow it, and US-guided cannulation is not available.

Trendelenburg (Head-Down Tilt) and Head Rotation: Ultrasonographic effects on the internal jugular vein for catheterization safety

Most guidelines fail to specify patient positioning during central venous catheterization. The objective was to determine the effects of head-down tilt (Trendelenburg position) and head rotation on the internal jugular vein (IJV). A prospective, observational, longitudinal, and descriptive study using healthy adult volunteers, of both sexes, was performed. The change in position and cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the right IJV and common carotid artery (CA) were measured by ultrasonography during Trendelenburg position (TP) (0°, 5°, 10°, and 15°) and contralateral head-rotation (HR) (0°, 45°, and 90°) for a total of 12 positions. The neutral supine position was first, randomizing the other 11 positions, with 5-minute rest intervals in between. Vital signs and symptoms were recorded. A total of 54 volunteers were recruited between the ages of 21 and 32, of which 30 were men. Any degree of TP or HR significantly increased the CSA. The largest area obtained was 1.78cm² with a TP15HR90 which did not have a statistical difference with TP10HR45 1.59cm² . A HR90 tended to displace the IJV medially, overlaying the CA. Any degree of TP or HR will significantly increase CSA or the right IJV. A 5° to 10° TP is recommended when the patient's condition allows it, with a 45° HR, without significantly displacing the IJV anterior to the CCA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Reducing Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSIs) by Reducing Central Line Days

Purpose of Review

While reducing unnecessary days present of central venous catheters (CVCs) is part of central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) best practices, there is limited information regarding compliance with this recommendation as well as addressing barriers to compliance.

Recent Findings

Significant work has been directed towards daily audits of necessity and improving communication between members of the medical team. Other critical interventions include utilization of the electronic health record (EHR), leadership support of CLABSI reduction goals, and avoiding CVC placement over more appropriate vascular access.

Summary

Institutions have varied approaches to addressing the issue of removing idle CVCs, and more standardized approaches in checklists as well as communication, particularly on multidisciplinary rounds, will be key to CVC removal. Utilization of the EHR for reminders or appropriate documentation of necessity is a factor. Avoidance of placing a CVC or appropriateness of the CVC is also important to consider.

Information Needs and the Use of Documentation to Support Collaborative Decision-Making: Implications for the Reduction of Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infections

It is clear that interdisciplinary communication and collaboration have the potential to mitigate healthcare-associated harm, yet there is limited research on how communication through documentation in the patient record can support collaborative decision making. Understanding what information is needed to support collaborative decision making is necessary to design electronic health information systems that facilitate effective communication and, ultimately, safe care. To explore this issue, we focused on information needs related to central venous catheter management and the prevention of central line-associated blood stream infections. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurses working in an intensive care unit. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (1) challenges managing documentation in multiple places in the absence of formal documentation processes for central venous catheter management; (2) lack of standardized decision-making processes for managing central venous catheters; and (3) oral communication holds it together. Our findings provide a foundation for the development of EHR functional requirements that enhance communication regarding the management of central venous catheters and facilitate the prompt removal of unnecessary lines.

Guide-wire replacement of a mini-midline catheter with a central venous catheter: A retrospective study on 63 cases

BACKGROUND

Achieving a reliable venous access in a particular subset of patients and/or in emergency settings can be challenging and time-consuming. Furthermore, many hospitalized patients do not meet the criteria for central venous catheter positioning, unless an upgrade of the treatment is further needed. The mini-midline catheter has already showed to be reliable and safe as a stand-alone device, since it is easily and rapidly inserted and can indwell up to 1 month.

METHODS

In this further case series, we retrospectively evaluated data from 63 patients where a previously inserted mini-midline catheter was upgraded to a central venous catheter (the devices inserted in the arm replaced by peripherally inserted central catheter and others inserted "off-label" in the internal jugular replaced by single lumen centrally inserted central catheter), being used as introducer for the Seldinger guidewire.

RESULTS

The guidewire replacement was been made even early (after 1 day) or late (more than 10 days), usually following a need for an upgrade in treatment. No early or late complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

According to the preliminary data we collected, this converting procedure seems to be feasible and risk-free, since neither infectious nor thrombotic complications were reported.

Identifying best practices in electronic health record documentation to support interprofessional communication for the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research on best practices for communication through the electronic health record (EHR) to support shared decision-making and to prevent adverse events. To explore this issue, this study focused on interprofessional communication around a specific clinical issue, the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections.

METHODS

The Delphi technique was used to describe what information is needed to support decisions regarding central venous catheter (CVC) management, and best practices for communicating this information among the interprofessional team.

RESULTS

The expert panel, 4 physicians and 6 nurses, identified 12 information types necessary for decisions regarding CVC management and the removal of unnecessary lines. For each of the 12 information types, the panel reached agreement regarding the best channel to communicate this information, including asynchronous EHR formats and synchronous oral channels.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings address 2 important aspects of postinsertion CVC practices and a gap in the literature by moving beyond a description of current practices to a description of how the EHR ought to be used to support collaboration and interprofessional communication. Future research should examine how the communication practices identified in this study contribute to a reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections.

Development of the peripheral and central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention knowledge and attitudes scale

BACKGROUND

Because of the necessities of modern medicine, catheters are frequently used for patients today. Mistakes made in catheter implementation frequently cause nosocomial infections.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to be used for the evaluation of nurses' knowledge and attitudes about peripheral and central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This methodological study was conducted between July 2016 and December 2017, with 150 nurses who worked in intensive care units and surgical, internal and paediatric clinics in hospitals located in two different cities in the eastern part of Turkey and who consented to participate in the study.

RESULTS

Item total correlation values of the scale ranged between 0.515 and 0.703. Correlation coefficient between the two measurements as a result of the test-retest reliability was found to be 0.64, and there was a linear relationship between the measurements. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was found to be0.875, which indicates the adequacy of the sample. Barlett's test results indicated a correlation between the items (P < .01). Cronbach's alpha value of the scale was found to be 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS

Results showed that the 5-point Likert scale was formed with 14 items and two factors, which included "general precautions" and "catheter care." Scale total score is obtained by collecting all the items. Higher scores indicate higher knowledge and attitudes. This scale could be used for assessing the knowledge and attitudes of nurses about peripheral and central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection prevention precautions.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The Peripheral and Central Venous Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection Prevention Knowledge and Attitudes Scale could be used for infection prevention in the assessment of the knowledge and attitudes of nurses with a view of preventing infections. The scale can be used in intensive care units and surgical, internal and paediatric clinics in order to assess nurses' knowledge and attitudes.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practice on the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections among nurses in oncological care: A cross-sectional study in an area of southern Italy

The objectives of the cross-sectional study were to delineate the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among nurses regarding the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and to identify their predisposing factors. A questionnaire was self-administered from September to November 2011 to nurses in oncology and outpatient chemotherapy units in 16 teaching and non-teaching public and private hospitals in the Campania region (Italy). The questionnaire gathered information on demographic and occupational characteristics; knowledge about evidence-based practices for the prevention of CLABSIs; attitudes towards guidelines, the risk of transmitting infections, and hand-washing when using central venous catheter (CVC); practices about catheter site care; and sources of information. The vast majority of the 335 nurses answered questions correctly about the main recommendations to prevent CLABSIs (use sterile gauze or sterile transparent semipermeable dressing to cover the catheter site, disinfect the needleless connectors before administer medication or fluid, disinfect with hydrogen peroxide the catheter insertion site, and use routinely anticoagulants solutions). Nurses aged 36 to 50 years were less likely to know these main recommendations to prevent CLABSIs, whereas this knowledge was higher in those who have received information about the prevention of these infections from courses. Nurses with lower education and those who do not know two of the main recommendations on the site’s care to prevent the CLABSIs, were more likely to perceive the risk of transmitting an infection. Higher education, attitude toward the utility allow to dry antiseptic, and the need of washing hands before wearing gloves for access to port infusion were predictors of performing skin antiseptic and aseptic technique for dressing the catheter insertion site. Educational interventions should be implemented to address the gaps regarding knowledge and practice regarding the prevention of CLABSIs and to ensure that nurses use evidence-based prevention interventions.

Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of idle intravenous catheters: An integrative review

OBJECTIVE

Complications of intravenous catheters remain a major contributor to health care costs and are a patient safety problem. An intravenous catheter not actively in use-an idle catheter-may increase the risk of infectious and noninfectious complications. We conducted an integrative review of the available literature to evaluate the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with idle intravenous catheters.

METHODS

Searches of multiple computerized databases were conducted to identify studies on idle intravenous catheters. Data on definitions of idle catheter, type of catheter, prevalence, risk factors, and patient outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The location and setting of the studies were diverse, including cross-sectional, retrospective, and prospective, and were conducted in varied geographic locations. The definition of an idle catheter was variable across studies. Although studies varied in terms of line-days or number of catheters placed, the primary definition of idle device was based on number of days or percent of devices left in situ without use. Four studies evaluated patient outcomes associated with idle catheters and found increased risk of infection, intensive care unit admission, and phlebitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Idle intravenous catheters are common and are associated with adverse outcomes. Prospective studies incorporating uniform definitions of idle catheters to test interventions to reduce idle catheter use are urgently needed.

Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

Effectiveness of a training program in compliance with recommendations for venous lines care

Background

The impact of training programs on the care and maintenance of venous lines (VL) has been assessed mainly in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on the impact of such programs in a whole general hospital are scarce. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with VL care after an extensive training program aimed at nurses caring for adult ICU and non-ICU patients.

Methods

We performed 2 point prevalence studies in a general hospital. A specialized nurse visited all hospitalized adult patients, performed a bedside inspection, and reviewed the nursing records for patients with a VL before and after a 1-year training program. The program included an interactive on-line teaching component and distribution of pocket leaflets and posters with recommendations on VL care.

Results

Data recorded for the first and second prevalence studies were as follows: number of patients visited, 753 vs. 682; total number of patients with ≥ 1 VL implanted on the visit day, 653 (86.7 %) vs 585 (85.8 %); catheters considered unnecessary on the study day, 183 (22.9 %) vs 48 (7.1 %) (p < 0.001); number of catheters with local clinical evidence of infection on the study day, 18 (2.2 %) vs 12 (1.8 %) (p = 0.52); registration of insertion day (42.3 % vs 50.1 %; p = 0.003); and registration of day of dressing change (41.2 % vs 49.1 %; p = 0.003). Maintenance parameters improved more in non-ICU than in ICU patients.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary teaching program to improve VL care and compliance with recommendations is effective. Point prevalence studies are easy to carry out and effective at demonstrating increases in compliance, mainly in non-ICU patients.

Navigating venous access: a guide for hospitalists

Venous access is the foundation for safe and effective hospital-based care. Inpatient providers must have a deep knowledge of the different types of venous access devices (VADs), their relative indications, contraindications, and appropriateness. However, such knowledge is difficult to come by and usually only gleaned through years of clinical experience. To bridge this gap, we provide an in-depth summary of the relevant anatomical considerations, physical characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of VADs commonly used in the hospital setting. In doing so, we seek to improve the safety and share the science of vascular access with frontline clinicians. To aid decision-making, we conclude by operationalizing the available data through algorithms that outline appropriate vascular access for the hospitalized patient.

Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals: 2014 Update

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention efforts. This document updates “Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals,” published in 2008. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise. The list of endorsing and supporting organizations is presented in the introduction to the 2014 updates.

Do clinicians know which of their patients have central venous catheters?: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Complications associated with central venous catheters (CVCs) increase over time. Although early removal of unnecessary CVCs is important to prevent complications, the extent to which clinicians are aware that their patients have a CVC is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how often clinicians were unaware of the presence of triple-lumen catheters or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in hospitalized patients.

DESIGN

Multicenter, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

3 academic medical centers in the United States.

PATIENTS

Hospitalized medical patients in intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU settings.

MEASUREMENTS

To ascertain awareness of CVCs, whether a PICC or triple-lumen catheter was present was determined; clinicians were then queried about device presence. Differences in device awareness among clinicians were assessed by chi-square tests.

RESULTS

990 patients were evaluated, and 1881 clinician assessments were done. The overall prevalence of CVCs was 21.1% (n=209), of which 60.3% (126 of 209) were PICCs. A total of 21.2% (90 of 425) of clinicians interviewed were unaware of the presence of a CVC. Unawareness was greatest among patients with PICCs, where 25.1% (60 of 239) of clinicians were unaware of PICC presence. Teaching attendings and hospitalists were more frequently unaware of the presence of CVCs than interns and residents (25.8% and 30.5%, respectively, vs. 16.4%). Critical care physicians were more likely to be aware of CVC presence than general medicine physicians (12.6% vs. 26.2%; P=0.003).

LIMITATIONS

Awareness was determined at 1 point in time and was not linked to outcomes. Patient length of stay and indication for CVC were not recorded.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians are frequently unaware of the presence of PICCs and triple-lumen catheters in hospitalized patients. Further study of mechanisms that ensure that clinicians are aware of these devices so that they may assess their necessity seems warranted.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Variation of arterial and central venous catheter use in United States intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Arterial catheters (ACs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) are common in intensive care units (ICUs). Few data describe which patients receive these devices and whether variability in practice exists.

METHODS

The authors conducted an observational cohort study on adult patients admitted to ICU during 2001-2008 by using Project IMPACT to determine whether AC and CVC use is consistent across U.S. ICUs. The authors examined trends over time and patients more (mechanically ventilated or on vasopressors) or less (predicted risk of hospital mortality ≤2%) likely to receive either catheter.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 334,123 patients across 122 hospitals and 168 ICUs. Unadjusted AC usage rates remained constant (36.9% [2001] vs. 36.4% [2008]; P = 0.212), whereas CVC use increased (from 33.4% [2001] to 43.8% [2008]; P < 0.001 comparing 2001 and 2008); adjusted AC usage rates were constant from 2004 (35.2%) to 2008 (36.4%; P = 0.43 for trend). Surgical ICUs used both catheters most often (unadjusted rates, ACs: 56.0% of patients vs. 22.4% in medical and 32.6% in combined units, P < 0.001; CVCs: 46.9% vs. 32.5% and 36.4%, P < 0.001). There was a wide variability in AC use across ICUs in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (median [interquartile range], 49.2% [29.9-72.3%]; adjusted median odds ratio [AMOR], 2.56), vasopressors (51.7% [30.8-76.2%]; AMOR, 2.64), and with predicted mortality of 2% or less (31.7% [19.5-49.3%]; AMOR, 1.94). There was less variability in CVC use (mechanical ventilation: 63.4% [54.9-72.9%], AMOR, 1.69; vasopressors: 71.4% (59.5-85.7%), AMOR, 1.93; predicted mortality of 2% or less: 18.7% (11.9-27.3%), AMOR, 1.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ACs and CVCs are common in ICU patients. There is more variation in use of ACs than CVCs.

Hospital-wide survey of the adequacy in the number of vascular catheters and catheter lumens

BACKGROUND

Removal of unnecessary catheters has been proposed as an important measure to reduce catheter-related morbidity. Nevertheless, there is scarce information about the potential magnitude of such intervention.

OBJECTIVE

The present study was aimed at analyzing the appropriateness of use of vascular catheters and catheter lumens in the inpatient setting.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

The entire population of adult inpatients admitted to a 1368-bed tertiary-care hospital in a single day.

MEASUREMENTS

We used a set of preestablished criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of use of vascular catheters and catheter lumens according to the number and administration regimen of intravenous drugs.

RESULTS

Out of 834 patients, 575 (68.9%) had ≥1 vascular catheters in place on the day of the survey. The type and distribution of the 703 surveyed catheters were peripheral venous catheter, 80.6%; central venous catheter, 15.8%; and arterial catheter, 3.6%. We found an overall mean of 2.06 ± 0.82 lumens per catheter, with significant differences between intensive care units and conventional wards (P < 0.0001). Based on our criteria, 126 out of 575 patients (21.9%) had an inappropriate number of catheters (medical wards, 20.0%; surgical wards, 23.9%; intensive care units, 26.3%), and 631 out of 14248 nonarterial catheter lumens (43.6%) were considered unnecessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant room exists for improving the adequacy of the number of vascular catheters and catheter lumens as a potentially useful tool for decreasing the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection.

The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs.

RESULTS

Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18-0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54-0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46-1.79]).

LIMITATIONS

Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.

Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge regarding peripherally inserted central catheters: a Michigan survey

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly inserted during hospitalization for a variety of clinical indications.

OBJECTIVE

To understand hospitalist experience, practice, knowledge, and opinions as they relate to PICCs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Web-based survey of hospitalists in 5 healthcare systems (representing a total of 10 hospitals) across Michigan.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 63% (227 hospitalists received invitations; 144 responded). Compared with central venous catheters, hospitalists felt that PICCs were safer to insert (81%) and preferred by patients (74%). Although 84% of respondents reported that placing a PICC solely to obtain venous access was appropriate, 47% also indicated that 10%-25% of PICCs inserted in their hospitals might represent inappropriate placement. Hospitalist knowledge regarding PICC-related venous thromboembolism was poor, with only 4% recognizing that PICC-tip verification was performed principally to prevent thrombosis. Furthermore, several potential practice-related concerns were identified: one-third of hospitalists indicated that they never examine PICCs for externally evident problems, such as exit-site infection; 48% responded that once inserted, they did not remove PICCs until a patient was ready for discharge; and 51% admitted that, at least once, they had "forgotten" that their patient had a PICC.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalist experiences, practice, opinions, and knowledge related to PICCs appear to be variable. Because PICC use is growing and is often associated with complications, examining the impact of such variation is necessary. Hospitals and health systems should consider developing and implementing mechanisms to monitor PICC use and adverse events.

Implementation of infection control best practice in intensive care units throughout Europe: a mixed-method evaluation study

Background

The implementation of evidence-based infection control practices is essential, yet challenging for healthcare institutions worldwide. Although acknowledged that implementation success varies with contextual factors, little is known regarding the most critical specific conditions within the complex cultural milieu of varying economic, political, and healthcare systems. Given the increasing reliance on unified global schemes to improve patient safety and healthcare effectiveness, research on this topic is needed and timely. The ‘InDepth’ work package of the European FP7 Prevention of Hospital Infections by Intervention and Training (PROHIBIT) consortium aims to assess barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) prevention in intensive care units (ICU) across several European countries.

Methods

We use a qualitative case study approach in the ICUs of six purposefully selected acute care hospitals among the 15 participants in the PROHIBIT CRBSI intervention study. For sensitizing schemes we apply the theory of diffusion of innovation, published implementation frameworks, sensemaking, and new institutionalism. We conduct interviews with hospital health providers/agents at different organizational levels and ethnographic observations, and conduct rich artifact collection, and photography during two rounds of on-site visits, once before and once one year into the intervention. Data analysis is based on grounded theory. Given the challenge of different languages and cultures, we enlist the help of local interpreters, allot two days for site visits, and perform triangulation across multiple data sources.

Qualitative measures of implementation success will consider the longitudinal interaction between the initiative and the institutional context. Quantitative outcomes on catheter-related bloodstream infections and performance indicators from another work package of the consortium will produce a final mixed-methods report.

Conclusion

A mixed-methods study of this scale with longitudinal follow-up is unique in the field of infection control. It highlights the ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of best practice implementation, revealing key factors that determine success of a uniform intervention in the context of several varying cultural, economic, political, and medical systems across Europe. These new insights will guide future implementation of more tailored and hence more successful infection control programs.

Trial registration

Trial number: PROHIBIT-241928 (FP7 reference number)

Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended for patients in the intensive-care unit (ICU), but it does not consistently achieve nutritional goals. We assessed whether delivery of 100% of the energy target from days 4 to 8 in the ICU with EN plus supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) could optimise clinical outcome.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in two centres in Switzerland. We enrolled patients on day 3 of admission to the ICU who had received less than 60% of their energy target from EN, were expected to stay for longer than 5 days, and to survive for longer than 7 days. We calculated energy targets with indirect calorimetry on day 3, or if not possible, set targets as 25 and 30 kcal per kg of ideal bodyweight a day for women and men, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive EN or SPN. The primary outcome was occurrence of nosocomial infection after cessation of intervention (day 8), measured until end of follow-up (day 28), analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00802503.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 153 patients to SPN and 152 to EN. 30 patients discontinued before the study end. Mean energy delivery between day 4 and 8 was 28 kcal/kg per day (SD 5) for the SPN group (103% [SD 18%] of energy target), compared with 20 kcal/kg per day (7) for the EN group (77% [27%]). Between days 9 and 28, 41 (27%) of 153 patients in the SPN group had a nosocomial infection compared with 58 (38%) of 152 patients in the EN group (hazard ratio 0·65, 95% CI 0·43-0·97; p=0·0338), and the SPN group had a lower mean number of nosocomial infections per patient (-0·42 [-0·79 to -0·05]; p=0·0248).

INTERPRETATION

Individually optimised energy supplementation with SPN starting 4 days after ICU admission could reduce nosocomial infections and should be considered as a strategy to improve clinical outcome in patients in the ICU for whom EN is insufficient.

FUNDING

Foundation Nutrition 2000Plus, ICU Quality Funds, Baxter, and Fresenius Kabi.

'Matching Michigan': a 2-year stepped interventional programme to minimise central venous catheter-blood stream infections in intensive care units in England

BACKGROUND

Bloodstream infections from central venous catheters (CVC-BSIs) increase morbidity and costs in intensive care units (ICUs). Substantial reductions in CVC-BSI rates have been reported using a combination of technical and non-technical interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-year, four-cluster, stepped non-randomised study of technical and non-technical (behavioural) interventions to prevent CVC-BSIs in adult and paediatric ICUs in England. Random-effects Poisson regression modelling was used to compare infection rates. A sample of ICUs participated in data verification.

RESULTS

Of 223 ICUs in England, 215 (196 adult, 19 paediatric) submitted data on 2479 of 2787 possible months and 147 (66%) provided complete data. The exposure rate was 438 887 (404 252 adult and 34 635 paediatric) CVC-patient days. Over 20 months, 1092 CVC-BSIs were reported. Of these, 884 (81%) were ICU acquired. For adult ICUs, the mean CVC-BSI rate decreased over 20 months from 3.7 in the first cluster to 1.48 CVC-BSIs/1000 CVC-patient days (p<0.0001) for all clusters combined, and for paediatric ICUs from 5.65 to 2.89 (p=0.625). The trend for infection rate reduction did not accelerate following interventions training. CVC utilisation rates remained stable. Pre-ICU infections declined in parallel with ICU-acquired infections. Criterion-referenced case note review showed high agreement between adjudicators (κ 0.706) but wide variation in blood culture sampling rates and CVC utilisation. Generic infection control practices varied widely.

CONCLUSIONS

The marked reduction in CVC-BSI rates in English ICUs found in this study is likely part of a wider secular trend for a system-wide improvement in healthcare-associated infections. Opportunities exist for greater harmonisation of infection control practices. Future studies should investigate causal mechanisms and contextual factors influencing the impact of interventions directed at improving patient care.