A time and motion study of peripheral venous catheter flushing practice using manually prepared and prefilled flush syringes

Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are the simplest and most frequently used method for drug, fluid, and blood product administration in the hospital setting. It is estimated that up to 90% of patients in acute care hospitals require a PVC; however, PVCs are associated with inherent complications, which can be mechanical or infectious. There have been a range of strategies to prevent or reduce PVC-related complications that include optimizing patency through the use of flushing. Little is known about the current status of flushing practice. This observational study quantified preparation and administration time and identified adherence to principles of Aseptic Non-Touch Technique and organizational protocol on PVC flushing by using both manually prepared and prefilled syringes.

Managing peripheral intravenous devices in the adults' general surgical setting: a best practice implementation report

AIM The aim of this evidence-based practice (EBP) project was to promote adherence to the current best practice in monitoring and optimal replacement of peripheral intravenous device (PIVD). METHODS This EBP project took place in a 30-bed acute general surgical ward. Twenty in-patients with PIVD in situ for 4 days or more were recruited. There were five stages in the project: identification of EBP topic, criteria, sample and setting; baseline; dissemination of baseline audit results and identification of best practice barriers; identification of barriers to EBP and implementation of strategies promoting EBP; and postimplementation audit. RESULTS There were eight criteria in this project. The first audit showed moderate compliance in PIVD monitoring and optimal replacement. The project identified three barriers: lack of awareness of the current evidence-based guidelines, hospital policy not being aligned with current guidelines and no standard form of documentation. In order to overcome these barriers the following strategies were used: audit and feedback, interactive educational meetings, reminders and hospital policy change. The second audit showed minor improvements in each criterion. Compliance with documentation remained a challenge, possibly because of the lack of standardised documentation. DISCUSSION Although the project did not render us the results we aimed for, it was successful because it highlighted the current EBP in PIVD management. The major challenges of the project were time and the lack of opinion leaders in our project team. We felt that more time was needed to adapt to the practice change and standardised documentation could not be developed in such a short time period. Further, the role of the opinion leader proved to be vital in this project. We felt that had we recruited more than one opinion leader, the results would have been different.

Routine replacement of short peripheral intravenous cannulae in children: evidence of an unnecessary practice

Short peripheral intravenous cannulae (pIVC) are prone to specific problems such as thrombophlebitis, infiltration and bacterial colonisation. This paper presents data from a study of 80 polyurethane pIVC in 59 children within a general paediatric population. There was no significant colonisation of any cannula by bacterial or fungal organisms. This study provides evidence that it is safe not to routinely replace pIVC in this population. It supports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for intravenous cannula (IVC) management in children.

Intravenous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a common problem that can be prevented [Editorial]

No Abstract

The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Aim: To investigate the patient experience of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) insertion, the significance of arm choice and the impact of the device on activities of daily living. BACKGROUND: Arm choice for PICC insertion is often determined by PICC nurses with little input from consumers. There are few studies that have investigated the patient experience of living with a PICC and none that have examined the impact of arm choice from the consumer's perspective. METHOD: Participants were recruited in a hospital whilst they waited for PICC insertion. A purposeful sampling approach was used to select participants based on diagnosis types. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted November 2012-August 2013. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Ten participants were interviewed. Four themes were identified: (i) apprehension/adaptation/acceptance, (ii) impact of treatment, (iii) asking questions (trusting doctors) and (iv) freedom. Although initially apprehensive, participants adapted to the PICC and came to accept that the device allowed convenient access for treatment. This allowed them the freedom to receive treatment at home. The use of the dominant or non-dominant arm for PICC insertion had marginal impact on activities of daily living for participants. Auxiliary factors such as the infusion pump had a significant impact for those who received outpatient treatment. For those participants who did not understand the procedure, many did not seek clarification and trusted medical and nursing staff to make decisions for them. CONCLUSION: Nurses should involve consumers in clinical decision-making and provide individualised information and support that facilitates adaptation for patients living with a PICC.

Sjuksköterskans rutiner och omvårdnad kring perifera venkatetrar samthur komplikationer kan undvikas : -En litteraturstudie-

Syftet med litteraturstudien var att beskriva sjuksköterskans rutiner i samband med insättande och omvårdnad av perifera venkatetrar samt att beskriva observationer och åtgärder som sjuksköterskan gör för att undvika komplikationer. Artikelsökningen har skett i databaserna: Elin@Dalarna, Blackwell Synergy, EBSCO-host och Elsevier. De sökord som använts i olika kombinationer var: peripheral, intravenous, catheter/line/cannula, handhygiene, nurse, infections, phlebitis, routine och technique. Artiklarna skulle vara vetenskapligt skrivna på engelska och fick inte vara publicerade före år 1996. Sammanlagt inkluderades 20 artiklar i litteraturstudien varav 16 kvantitativa, 2 kvalitativa och 2 där båda designerna fanns representerade. Resultatet av litteraturstudien visade att de flesta sjuksköterskor inte tar hänsyn till hygieniska aspekter vid inläggning av en perifer venkateter (PVK) och det vanligaste stället för venpunktion var handryggen. Symtomen på komplikationer av en PVK var smärta, rodnad, ömhet, värmeökning, svullnad och hårda, stela vener. Flera sjuksköterskor bad patienterna att informera dem om de upptäckte rodnad, smärta eller svullnad kring PVK:erna, sjuksköterskorna drog dagligen handen över PVK:ernas bandage och frågade patienterna hur det kändes. De flesta sjuksköterskor spolade PVK:erna dagligen med natriumkloridlösning som en preventiv åtgärd. Den vanligaste komplikationen var tromboflebit. För att förebygga tromboflebit rekommenderas den minsta möjliga storleken på en PVK. Det förekommer olika riktlinjer världen över om hur lång tid en PVK bör vara placerad i en ven. Studierna visade olika resultat från 24 timmar upp till 92 timmar och däröver.

Clinically indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)

Background Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. Objectives To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Efectividad en la canalización yugular guiada por ecografía usando tres diferentes técnicas. Experimento en modelos simulados.

Introducción: El desarrollo tecnológico permite efectuar procedimientos eficientes en pacientes críticos de urgencias como canalizar vasos centrales guiados por ecografía. Éste procedimiento comparado con la técnica a ciegas ofrece ventajas como disminución de complicaciones, mejor éxito y menor tiempo de procedimiento. Hay diferentes técnicas de abordaje: transversal, longitudinal y oblicua, lo que supone diferencias en la efectividad y éxito en cada una de ellas. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un experimento en modelos simulados con especialistas y residentes de último año de medicina de emergencias. Posterior a estandarizar los conceptos y abordajes de cada una de las técnicas, se puncionaron los modelos para determinar cuál técnica presenta mayor éxito y efectividad para canalización yugular con guía ecográfica. Resultados: El procedimiento fue efectivo en 175 réplicas (97.2%) distribuidas así: éxito 133 (73.9%), redirección 37 (20.6%) y requerimiento de segunda punción en 5 (2.8%). En la técnica transversal la efectividad fue 96.7% (n=58), en longitudinal del 100% (n=60) y en oblicua del 95.0% (n=57), (p=0.377). En residentes la efectividad fue 95.6% (n=86) y en especialistas 98.9% (n=89), (p=0.184). La distribución de éxito mostró que en los especialistas fue mayor en un 18.9% que en los residentes (p=0.004), por género los hombres tienen un éxito mayor en un 18.7% que las mujeres (p=0.009, OR=3.12, IC 95%: 1.30, 7.52). Discusión: No se encontró diferencia significativa en el uso de cualquier técnica, pero la tendencia favorece la técnica longitudinal, quien obtuvo mayor porcentaje de efectividad y éxito.

Idle central venous catheter-days pose infection risk for patients after discharge from intensive care

This prospective observational study measured idle central venous catheter (CVC)-days (no medical indication), and ward clinicians' adherence to evidence-based practices for preventing short-term central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). In 340 patients discharged from ICU over a 1-year period, 208 of 794 CVC-days (26.2%) were idle. Interventions to prevent CLABSIs were poorly implemented. Ward clinicians need education regarding risk management strategies to prevent CLABSIs, and clear accountability processes for prompt catheter removal are recommended.

Efficacy of Adding 2% (w/v) Chlorhexidine Gluconate to 70% (v/v) Isopropyl Alcohol for Skin Disinfection Prior to Peripheral Venous Cannulation

We undertook a clinical trial to compare the efficacy of 2% (w/v) chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol with the efficacy of 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol alone for skin disinfection to prevent peripheral venous catheter colonization and contamination. We found that the addition of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduced the number of peripheral venous catheters that were colonized or contaminated. © 2008 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Obstruction and infiltration: a proposal of a quality indicator.

Background The quest for continuous improvement of the quality of provided care is the objective of nursing care. However, the insertion and permanence of a peripheral venous catheter has been associated to complications, thus making a systematic evaluation of the performance of professionals and the management of health services important. Objective: Analyse complications that caused removal of intravenous catheters. Methods A prospective study with 64 patients of a health service of Portugal, from July to September/2015. Included patients with age 18 years, with a peripheral venous catheter. Descriptive analysis using SPSS. Ethical requirements were met. Results Two hundred three (203) intravenous catheters, in 64 patients, most elderly (section 95.3 %), with mean age of 80 years were evaluated. The catheters remained inserted between one and 12 days (mean 2 days), 66 % of the devices were removed because of complications, such as: removal by the patient (17.7 %), obstruction (17.2 %), infiltration (14.8 %), phlebitis (9.4 %) and fluid exiting the insertion site (6.4 %). The prevalence of obstruction and infiltration per patient was respectively 36 % and 39 %. Conclusions Obstruction and infiltration were the complications of higher prevalence that led to the removal and reinsertion of a new peripheral venous catheter with the possibility of increased pain, infection and hospital costs. Faced with the risk of compromising patient safety and being able to contribute to the improvement of health care, we suggest the inclusion of obstruction and infiltration in the indicators of quality of care, in order to have systematic evaluation of results, (re)plan and implement preventive measures.

A point prevalence study of cancer nursing practices for managing intravascular devices in an Australian tertiary cancer center

Purpose The use of intravascular devices is associated with a number of potential complications. Despite a number of evidence-based clinical guidelines in this area, there continues to be nursing practice discrepancies. This study aims to examine nursing practice in a cancer care setting to identify nursing practice and areas for improvement respective to best available evidence. Methods A point prevalence survey was undertaken in a tertiary cancer care centre in Queensland, Australia. On a randomly selected day, four nurses assessed intravascular device related nursing practices and collected data using a standardized survey tool. Results 58 inpatients (100%) were assessed. Forty-eight (83%) had a device in situ, comprising 14 Peripheral Intravenous Catheters (29.2%), 14 Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (29.2%), 14 Hickman catheters (29.2%) and six Port-a-Caths (12.4%). Suboptimal outcomes such as incidences of local site complications, incorrect/inadequate documentation, lack of flushing orders, and unclean/non intact dressings were observed. Conclusions This study has highlighted a number of intravascular device related nursing practice discrepancies compared with current hospital policy. Education and other implementation strategies can be applied to improve nursing practice. Following education strategies, it will be valuable to repeat this survey on a regular basis to provide feedback to nursing staff and implement strategies to improve practice. More research is required to provide evidence to clinical practice with regards to intravascular device related consumables, flushing technique and protocols.