Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Peripheral intravenous device (IVD) complications were traditionally thought to be reduced by limiting dwell time. Current recommendations are to resite IVDs by 96 hours with the exception of children and patients with poor veins. Recent evidence suggests routine resite is unnecessary, at least if devices are inserted by a specialised IV team. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral IVD 'routine resite' with 'removal on clinical indication' on IVD complications in a general hospital without an IV team.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in a regional teaching hospital. After ethics approval, 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomised to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). IVDs were inserted and managed by the general hospital medical and nursing staff; there was no IV team. The primary endpoint was a composite of IVD complications: phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, accidental removal, local infection, and device-related bloodstream infection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>IVD complication rates were 68 per 1,000 IVD days (clinically indicated) and 66 per 1,000 IVD days (routine replacement) (<it>P </it>= 0.86; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). Time to first complication per patient did not differ between groups (KM with log rank, <it>P </it>= 0.53). There were no local infections or IVD-related bloodstream infections in either group. IV therapy duration did not differ between groups (<it>P </it>= 0.22), but more (<it>P </it>= 0.004) IVDs were placed per patient in the routine replacement (mean, 1.8) than the clinical indication group (mean, 1.5), with significantly higher hospital costs per patient (<it>P </it>< 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Resite on clinical indication would allow one in two patients to have a single cannula per course of IV treatment, as opposed to one in five patients managed with routine resite; overall complication rates appear similar. Clinically indicated resite would achieve savings in equipment, staff time and patient discomfort. There is growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral IVDs with removal only on clinical indication.</p> <p>Registration number</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Number ACTRN12608000421336.</p

The partnering with patients model of nursing interventions : A first step to a practice theory

The development of a body of knowledge, gained through research and theory building, is one hallmark of a profession. This paper presents the “Partnering with Patients Model of Nursing Interventions”, providing direction towards how complex nursing interventions can be developed, tested and subsequently adopted into practice. Coalescence of understanding of patient-centred care, the capabilities approach and the concept of complex healthcare interventions led to the development of the model assumptions and concepts. Application of the model to clinical practice is described, including presentation of a case study, and areas for future research including understanding both patients’ and nurses’ perceptions and experiences when the model is in use, and testing the effect of nursing interventions based on the model are recommende

Genome sequence of Staphylococcus epidermidis strain AU12-03, isolated from an intravascular catheter

In recent years, Staphylococcus epidermidis has become a major nosocomial pathogen and the most common cause of intravascular catheter-related bacteremia, which can increase morbidity and mortality and significantly affect patient recovery. We report a draft genome sequence of Staphylococcus epidermidis AU12-03, isolated from an intravascular catheter tip

Microbiological pattern of arterial catheters in the intensive care unit

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intravascular catheter related infection (CRI) is one of the most serious nosocomial infections. Diagnostic criteria include a positive culture from the catheter tip along with blood, yet in many patients with signs of infection, current culture techniques fail to identify pathogens on catheter segments. We hypothesised that a molecular examination of the bacterial community on short term arterial catheters (ACs) would improve our understanding of the variety of organisms that are present in this niche environment and would help develop new methods for the diagnosis of CRI.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The whole bacterial community presenting on all ACs was evaluated by molecular methods, i.e., a strategy of whole community DNA extraction, PCR amplification followed by cloning and 16S rDNA sequence analysis. Ten ACs were removed from patients suspected of CRI and 430 clones from 5 "colonised" and 5 "uncolonised" (semi-quantitative method) AC libraries were selected for sequencing and subsequent analysis. A total of 79 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were identified at the level of 97% similarity belonging to six bacterial divisions. An average of 20 OTUs were present in each AC, irrespective of colonisation status. Conventional culture failed to reveal the majority of these bacteria.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was no significant difference in the bacterial diversity between the 'uncolonised' and 'colonised' ACs. This suggests that vascular devices cultured conventionally and reported as non infective may at times potentially be a significant source of sepsis in critically ill patients. Alternative methods may be required for the accurate diagnosis of CRI in critically ill patients.</p

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

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 Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015). 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. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. 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 (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

Variables associated with successful vascular access cannulation in hemodialysis patients: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Successful vascular access (VA) cannulation is integral to the delivery of adequate dialysis, highlighting the importance of ensuring the viability of arteriovenous access in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Missed VA cannulation can lead to infection, infiltration, hematoma or aneurysm formation resulting in the need for access revision, central venous catheter (CVC) placement, or permanent loss of VA. Cannulation-related complications can also negatively impact on a patient\u27s dialysis experience and quality of life. This study aimed to identify patient, VA and nurse factors associated with unsuccessful VA cannulations. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in HD patients with a permanent VA from three HD units. Data on patient, VA and nurse characteristics, plus, cannulation technique were collected for each episode of cannulation. General Estimating Equation was used to fit a repeated measures logistic regression to determine the odds of cannulation success. RESULTS: We collected data on 1946 episodes of cannulation (83.9% fistula) in 149 patients by 63 nurses. Cannulation included use of tourniquet (62.9%), ultrasound (4.1%) and was by rope ladder (73.8%) or area (24.7%) technique. The miscannulation rate was 4.4% (n = 85) with a third of patients (n = 47) having at least one episode of miscannulation. Extravasation (n = 17, 0.9%) and use of an existing CVC (n = 6, 0.6%) were rare. Multivariable characteristics of successful cannulation included fistula compared with graft [OR 4.38; 95%CI, 1.89-10.1]; older access [OR 1.68; 95%CI, 1.32-2.14]; absence of stent [OR 3.37; 95%CI, 1.39-8.19]; no ultrasound [OR 13.7; 95%CI, 6.52-28.6]; no tourniquet [OR 2.32; 95%CI, 1.15-4.66]; and lack of post graduate certificate in renal nursing [OR 2.27; 95%CI, 1.31-3.93]. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a low rate of miscannulation. Further research is required on ultrasound-guided cannulation. Identifying variables associated with successful cannulation may be used to develop a VA cannulation complexity instrument that could be utilised to match to the cannulation skill of a competency-assessed nurse, thereby minimising the risk of missed cannulation and trauma

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials

Background: Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere. Aim: To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000–2021. Design: A scoping review of RCTs. Data Sources: Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021. Review Methods: This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR. Results: Our search yielded 186 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies. Conclusion: A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs. Patient or Public Contribution: This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable

Derivation of a clinical decision-making aid to improve the insertion of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters and promote vessel health preservation. An observational study

Background It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80% likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. Results In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68% of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.17–4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.02–5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 1.15–8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95% CI = 1.58–11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician’s pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80% was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95% CI = 2.06–4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Conclusions Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- “Does this patient need A-PIVC?” Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician’s perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80%.Full Tex