Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial

Background: Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings. Methods: We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987. Findings: Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference −4·5% [95% CI −11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (–2·7% [–9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (–1·2% [–7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation: Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed

Evaluation of the National Return of unwanted medicines (RUM) program in Australia: a study protocol

Abstract Background The National Return of Unwanted Medicines (NatRUM) program in Australia is one of the few nationally coordinated, free-to-consumer schemes to dispose of unwanted medicines globally. This scheme has been in operation since 1996, however, little is known about public awareness of the scheme and its effectiveness in reducing unsafe disposal practices. The study objectives are to undertake a review of (1) the current use of the NatRUM scheme by consumers; and (11) to investigate disposal practices and beliefs of the general population. Methods/design A two-stage, mixed-methods study will be undertaken. Stage One will include a nation-wide audit of a representative sample of unwanted medicine bins, collected by community pharmacies, for incineration. The audit will detail the type and amount of unwanted medicines collected and if they are subsidised on the national formulary (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme). Stage Two will include: (i) a large, representative, general population survey; and (ii) more detailed interviews with a sub-set of this sample, who take five or more medications. Results will quantitatively describe the awareness of the NatRUM scheme, disposal practices and the volume of unwanted medicines stored in the home. It will qualitatively describe beliefs and perceptions about storage and disposal practices. Discussion It is anticipated that this study will provide valuable insights about how Australians dispose of unwanted medicines, their awareness of the NatRUM scheme and how the scheme might be strengthened. Results will inform the Federal Department of Health and NatRUM Ltd. Board at a local level, as well as other countries who are yet to develop or implement coordinated disposal schemes. A number of challenges are expected, including ensuring the consistency of medicines terminology during the bin audit and recruiting a representative sample of Australians for the general population survey. Results of this study will be widely disseminated to support the translation of findings into practice

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN AUSTRALIA

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine submissions made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and assess whether the predicted financial impact was associated with a recommendation. The second objective was to assess whether the financial and utilization estimates for listing the proposed medicine were reliabl

‘You don’t throw these things out:’ an exploration of medicines retention and disposal practices in Australian homes

Abstract Background Consumers most commonly discard unwanted medicines in household rubbish or drains, however, there are global concerns over the extent, environmental impact and health risks. When consumers procure or store medicines for future use, this can impact negatively on quality use of medicines and consumer safety. We sought greater insight into the extent of these practices by exploring the volume and types of medicines in Australian homes, and self-reported practices related to medicine accumulation, use and disposal. This qualitative study formed part of a larger project that included a general population survey on household medicine disposal practices. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a subset of respondents (n = 166) from the survey. Participants were eligible if they were experienced medicine users, i.e. used five or more prescribed, over the counter, and/or complementary and alternative medicines. Participants were asked to collect and name all medicines in their household; further detail was obtained about medicines used only when required or no longer used, such as expiry dates and quantity remaining. The quantitative data on the number and type of medicines stored at home were analysed descriptively. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results A total of 2301 medicines were identified as 1424 medicines not in everyday use (unused, unwanted, expired or when required) in 166 households, and 877 regularly used medicines by 119 participants. Medicines were often stored in multiple locations, particularly kitchens. Although accidental ingestion in children and pets and decreased efficacy were recognised health risks, this did not always translate to appropriate storage, usage or disposal practices. Individual risk-benefit assessments were applied to decisions to retain, use or dispose of medicines, including expired medicines. Conclusions Inappropriate medicine storage, use, and/or disposal practices raises public health concerns, particularly as there is a free returned medicines scheme available, and that this particular participant group were considered experienced medicine users. Healthcare professionals must act to address consumer misconceptions around the quality use of medicines, including medicine retention, storage and disposal. Future research is warranted to explore consumer practices in this context and confirm these findings in a younger, or healthier population

Does policy change to allow pharmacist provision of influenza vaccination increase population uptake? A systematic review

Objective: The aims of this study were to estimate the effect of pharmacists' vaccinating for influenza on overall vaccination rates and to assess whether any effect differs for at-risk subgroups compared with the general population. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched during July 2019 and included Medline (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Results: The largest difference reported in overall population vaccination rates associated with pharmacists undertaking influenza vaccinations was an increase of 10%; the smallest showed no discernible effect. The effect was graduated: pharmacists with the most autonomy demonstrated the largest rate increases. There was evidence of substitution by pharmacists, but the effect size was small. Conclusions: The effect of allowing pharmacists to administer influenza vaccinations appears positive, but small. Given that pharmacists are likely to provide vaccinations at a lower cost than doctors, there may be cost-savings to the health system and consumers. Future research may include evaluating pharmacist-provided vaccinations compared with (or in combination with) other strategies, such as advertising, to increase access and uptake across the range of providers, as well as ongoing research to address vaccine hesitancy. What is known about the topic?: In Australia, and many other countries, community pharmacies provide an alternative and accessible option for influenza vaccination; however the effect on overall vaccination rates remains unclear. What does this paper add?: This systematic review of the international literature suggests that pharmacist-provided vaccinations increase uptake; substitution of doctors by pharmacists may result in cost savings. What are the implications for practitioners?: The findings of this study are important for health policy makers and health workforce researchers aiming to maximise population vaccination rates and workforce efficiency. In the absence of available Australian data, data from the international experience of legislating pharmacists to vaccinate against influenza are summarised and critiqued. Results can be used when determining the best health workforce and policy mix with regard to the vaccination workforce. </p

When is a medicine unwanted, how is it disposed, and how might safe disposal be promoted?: insights from the Australian population

Objective. The aim of the present study was to explore disposal practices of unwanted medicines in a representative sample of Australian adults, compare this with previous household waste surveys and explore awareness of the National Return and Disposal of Unwanted Medicines (RUM) Project. Methods. A 10-min online survey was developed, piloted and conducted with an existing research panel of adult individuals. Survey questions recorded demographics, the presence of unwanted medicines in the home, medicine disposal practices and concerns about unwanted medicines. Descriptive statistical analyses and rank-ordered logit regression were conducted. Results. Sixty per cent of 4302 respondents reported having unwanted medicines in their household. Medicines were primarily kept just in case they were needed again and one-third of these medicines were expired. Two-thirds of respondents disposed of medicines with the household garbage and approximately one-quarter poured medicines down the drain. Only 17.6% of respondents had heard of the RUM Project, although, once informed, 91.7% stated that they would use it. Respondents ranked the risk of unintended ingestion as the most important public health message for future social marketing campaigns. Conclusions. Respondents were largely unaware of the RUM Project, yet were willing to use it once informed. Limited awareness could lead to environmental or public health risks, and targeted information campaigns are needed