It Depends: Decision-Making for Insertion and Removal of Short Peripheral Catheters

The impact of a structured assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) on improving care of peripheral intravenous catheters: A multicenter, interrupted time-series study

BACKGROUND

Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most widely used invasive device in hospitals but have serious risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a structured assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) improves daily peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and care decisions.

DESIGN

Prospective, interrupted time-series study.

SETTINGS

Seven adult inpatient wards in three Australian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

825 adults with 867 peripheral intravenous catheters.

METHODS

Between August 2017 and December 2018, peripheral intravenous catheter assessments and chart audits were undertaken with informed patient consent. Following a 4-month pre-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures), the I-DECIDED® tool was implemented over 3 months (no data collection) using multiple strategies (stakeholder meetings, vascular access device form, education sessions, ward champions, lanyard cards, and posters), followed by a 4-month post-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures). Primary outcomes were device utilization (number of peripheral intravenous catheters per total number of patients screened); idle/unused catheters; insertion site complications, substandard dressing quality; and primary bloodstream infections.

RESULTS

Of 2055 patients screened, 1175 (57.2%) had a peripheral intravenous catheter, and 825 patients (867 catheters) consented and were included in the final analysis. Device utilization increased from 42.0% of catheters at baseline to 49.6% post-intervention (absolute risk difference [ARD] 7.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8, 10.3; relative risk [RR] 1.18, 95% CI 1.11, 1.25; p < 0.001). The proportion of idle catheters reduced from 12.7% to 8.3% (ARD -4.4%, 95% CI -8.5, -0.3; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44, 0.97; p = 0.035). Peripheral intravenous catheter complications reduced from 16.1% to 10.9% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -9.7, -0.6; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48, 0.96; p = 0.026). Substandard dressings reduced from 24.6% to 19.5% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -10.7, 0.4; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61, 1.02; p = 0.067). Only one primary bloodstream infection occurred (post-intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a comprehensive device assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) reduced idle catheters and catheter complications, despite higher device utilization. Dressing quality improved but was not statistically significant. Further implementation of the tool could improve hospital safety for patients with an intravenous catheter.

ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12617000067370. Date of registration 13 January 2017. Date of first data collection 3rd August 2017.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

#IDECIDEDassessment reduces prevalence of idle peripheral catheters and device complications.

Factors impacting emergency department clinicians' peripheral intravenous catheter practice: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are commonly used devices in emergency departments (EDs), and yet relatively little is known about factors influencing Australian clinicians' adherence to the national PIVC quality and safety Standard.

AIMS

To explore attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians around PIVC insertion and care processes.

METHODS

This study used an exploratory qualitative approach to analyse written responses to open-ended questions included in an online national (mixed data) survey. Snowballing methods were used to gather responses. Deductive analysis was used to analyse open-ended questions regarding practice and Standard adherence.

RESULTS

There were 340 written responses, mainly from nurses in public EDs, who reported suboptimal practices regarding idle catheters, lack of patient participation in care, antecubital fossa insertion, multiple insertion attempts, inadequate site preparation, poor documentation and insufficient review of PIVC. The main factors inhibiting ED clinicians from adhering to the Standard includes inadequate knowledge, perceptions of infeasibility, disbelief in evidence, ambiguous responsibilities, habitual practice, insufficient training, lack of recognition of good practice and inadequate engagement.

CONCLUSION

The factors that impact ED clinicians' PIVC Standard adherence are complex and multifactorial. Strategies and interventions are needed to facilitate the implementation of the Standard into daily practice and achieve sustainable behaviour change.

CE: Evidence-Based Practice for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Management

ABSTRACT

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are among the most common invasive devices used in hospitalized patients, with over 300 million sold in the United States each year. However, about one-fourth of PIVCs are left in situ with no prescriber orders for IV medications or solutions, "just in case" they might be needed. PIVC insertion can be painful, is often unnecessary, and may increase a patient's risk of developing a bloodstream infection. This article reviews the evidence for the appropriate use of short PIVCs in hospitalized patients, assesses the ongoing need for PIVCs, provides recommendations for alternative options, and argues for promptly removing a PIVC that is no longer in use.

I-DECIDED®-a decision tool for assessment and management of invasive devices in the hospital setting

Indwelling medical devices, including vascular access and urinary catheters, pose a risk for infection, and therefore daily assessment and consideration of their continued need is a patient safety priority. The I-DECIDED® device assessment and decision tool is an evidence-based checklist, designed to improve the assessment, care and timely removal of invasive devices in acute hospitalized patients. This paper explains each step of the tool, with rationale for inclusion.

Peripheral intravenous cannulation decision-making in emergency settings: a qualitative descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

Rates of unused ('idle') peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are high but can vary per setting. Understanding factors that influence the decision-making of doctors, nurses and paramedics in the emergency setting regarding PIVC insertion, and what factors may modify their decision is essential to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary cannulations and improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aimed to understand factors associated with clinicians' decision-making on whether to insert or use a PIVC in the emergency care setting.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.

SETTING

Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and local government ambulance service.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants recruited were ED clinicians (doctors, nurses) and paramedics who regularly insert PIVCs.

RESULTS

From the 15 clinicians interviewed 4 key themes: knowledge and experience, complicated and multifactorial, convenience, anticipated patient clinical course, and several subthemes emerged relating to clinician decision-making across all disciplines. The first two themes focused on decision-making to gather data and evidence, such as knowledge and experience, and decisions being complicated and multifactorial. The remaining two themes related to the actions clinicians took such as convenience and anticipated patient clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The decision to insert a PIVC is more complicated than clinicians, administrators and policy-makers may realise. When explored, clinician decisions were multifaceted with many factors influencing the decision to insert a PIVC. In actual practice, clinicians routinely insert PIVCs in most patients as a learnt reflex with little cognitive input. When considering PIVC insertion, more time needs to be devoted to the awareness of: (1) decision-making in the context of the clinician's own experience, (2) cognitive biases and (3) patient-centred factors. Such awareness will support an appropriate risk assessment which will benefit the patient, clinician and healthcare system.