Routine Changing of Intravenous Administration Sets Does Not Reduce Colonization or Infection in Central Venous Catheters

Objective: To determine the effect of routine intravascular administration-set changes on central venous catheter (CVC) colonization and catheter related bacteremia (CRB). Design: Prospective, randomised controlled trial Setting: 18-bed ICU in a University-affiliated, tertiary referral hospital. Participants: 404 chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine coated multi-lumen CVCs from 251 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Interventions: After ethical approval, CVCs inserted in ICU and in situ on Day 4 were randomised to have their administration-sets changed on Day 4 (n = 203) or not at all (n = 201). Fluid container and blood product administration-set use was limited to 24 hours. CVCs were removed (Day 7, not required or suspected infection), and cultured for colonization ( 15 cfu). Medical and laboratory staff were blinded. CRB was diagnosed by a blinded intensivist using strict definitions. Data was collected on; catheter life, CVC site, APACHE II score, patient age, diagnosis, hyperglycemia, hypoalbuminemia, immune status, number of fluid containers and intravenous injections, propofol, blood, TPN or lipid infusion. Results: There were 10 colonized CVCs in the set change group and 19 in the no change group. This was not a statistically significant difference on Kaplan Meier survival analysis (Effect Size = 0.09, Log Rank = 0.87, df = 1, p = 0.35). There were 3 cases of CRB per group. Logistic regression found that burns diagnosis and increased ICU stay were the only factors that significantly predicted colonization (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Intravenous administration-sets can be used for 7-days. Routine administration-set changes are unnecessary before this time

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

Dangers of Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization: The Forgotten Tourniquet and Other Patient Safety Considerations

Intravenous catheterization is a widely used invasive procedure, with applications in both ambulatory and hospital settings. Due to its inherently invasive nature, intravenous (IV) therapy is associated with a number of potential complications, many of which are directly relevant to patient safety (PS). PIV-related morbidity may be due to mechanical or nonmechanical factors. The most frequent nonmechanical peripheral venous catheterization adverse events (PVCAEs) include insertion site pain, phlebitis, hematoma formation, and infusate extravasation. The most common mechanical PVCAE is catheter obstruction/occlusion and dislodgement. Significant complications can also occur with the administration of incorrect type or wrong amount of IV fluids. Moreover, simultaneous infusion of incompatible medications can result in infusate precipitation. Finally, less frequent but significant complications have been reported, including bloodstream and local infections, air embolization, nerve damage, arterial puncture, skin necrosis associated with vasopressor infusions, and limb-threatening forgotten tourniquet events. Taken together, the above complications can lead to substantial patient discomfort, unnecessary or prolonged hospitalization, increased costs, and additional downstream morbidity. Efforts to prevent PVCAEs and improve patient outcomes should involve thorough provider education, clinical vigilance by all involved healthcare providers, health service level strategies, as well as the proactive participation of all stakeholders, including patients and their families

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

Mineralogy of sulfides

Metal sulphides are the most important group of ore minerals. As shown in this brief introduction, much is known about their compositions, crystal structures, phase relations and paragenesis. Much less is known about their surface chemistry and, in particular, about their biogeochemistry, and about the formation and behaviour of ‘nanoparticle’ sulphides, whether formed abiotically or biogenically. These are large and complex topics which can only be touched upon in this article which also serves to direct readers to more comprehensive accounts

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