Factors associated with peripheral intravenous cannulation first-time insertion success in the emergency department. A multicentre prospective cohort analysis of patient, clinician and product characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the incidence of and factors associated with peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula (PIVC) first time insertion success (FTIS) in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two tertiary EDs in Western Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 879 ED patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME: To identify factors affecting FTIS using univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling. We created four models: patient factors only; clinician factors only; products and technology factors only and all factors model. We assessed each model's performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: A total of 1201 PIVCs were inserted in 879 patients. The mean age was 60.3 (SD 22) years with slightly more females (52%). The FTIS rate was 73%, with 128 (15%) requiring a second attempt and 83 (9%) requiring three or more attempts. A small percentage (3%) had no recorded number of subsequent attempts. FTIS was related to the following patient factors: age (for a 1-year increase in age: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.998; p=0.0097); and target vein palpability: (always palpable vs never palpable: OR 3.53 95% CI 1.64 to 7.60; only palpable with tourniquet vs never palpable: OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.57; p=0.0014). Clinician factors related to FTIS include: clinicians with greater confidence (p<0.0001) and insertion experience (301-1000 vs <301: OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.34; >1000 vs <301: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.04; p=0.0011). The final all factors model combining patient factors; clinician factors and product and technology factors has greater discriminative ability than specific factors models. It has a sensitivity of 74.26%, specificity of 57.69%, positive predictive value of 82.87% and negative predictive value of 44.85%. CONCLUSION: A clinical decision, matching patients who have no palpable veins and are older, with clinicians with greater confidence and experience, will likely improve FTIS. TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTRN12615000588594; Results.

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%.

From insertion to removal: A multicenter survival analysis of an admitted cohort with peripheral intravenous catheters inserted in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Most patients admitted to the hospital via the emergency department (ED) do so with a peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula (PIVC). Many PIVCs develop postinsertion failure (PIF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the independent factors predicting PIF after PIVC insertion in the ED. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective clinical cohort study of ED-inserted PIVCs admitted to the hospital wards. Independent predictors of PIF were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. RESULTS: In 391 patients admitted from 2 EDs, the rate of PIF was 31% (n=118). The types of PIF identified were infiltration, occlusion, pain and/or peripheral intravenous assessment score >2 (ie, the hospital's assessment of PIVC phlebitis), and dislodgement (ie, accidental securement device failure or purposeful removal). Of the PIVCs that failed, infiltration and occlusion combined were the most common causes of PIF (n=55, 47%). The median PIVC dwell time was 28.5 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 17.4-50.8 hours). The following variables were associated with increased risk of PIF: being an older patient (for a 1-year increase, hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.03; P=.0001); having an Australian Triage Scale score of 1 or 2 compared to a score of 3, 4, or 5 (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.39-3.01; P=.0003); having an ultrasound-guided PIVC (HR, 6.52; 95% CI, 2.11-20.1; P=.0011); having the PIVC inserted by a medical student (P=.0095); infection prevention breaches at insertion (P=.0326); and PIVC inserted in the ante cubital fossa or the back of hand compared to the upper arm (P=.0337). CONCLUSION: PIF remains at an unacceptable level in both traditionally inserted and ultrasound-inserted PIVCs.Clinical trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Trials Registry (ANZCTRN12615000588594).

Foam dressings for treating pressure injuries in patients of any age in any care setting: An abridged Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are localised areas of injury to the skin and/or underlying tissues. OBJECTIVES: To assess foam dressings compared to other dressings in healing pressure injuries. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: The review team searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Authors also searched clinical trials registries and scanned reference lists for reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports. No restrictions were applied to language, publication date or study setting. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials and cluster- randomised controlled trials that examined the clinical or cost effectiveness of foam dressings for healing pressure injuries. PARTICIPANTS: Patients of any age with a pressure injury of Stage II or above in any care setting. INTERVENTIONS: Use of any foam wound dressing for treating Stage II pressure injuries or above. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Full-text were assessed for eligibility using a priori criteria by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were used to measure the effect. The review team used Review Manager 5 to enter narrative and qualitative data of included studies. RESULTS: Authors found nine studies published between 1994 and 2016 involving 483 participants with pressure injuries at Stage II or above. Included studies compared foam dressings with other types of dressings. However, it was unclear if the foam dressing affected healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78-1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI-4.03-15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-7.65), or reduction in pressure injury size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. LIMITATIONS: Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, the certainty and completeness of evidence was low to very low, making it difficult to draw comparisons between foam and other dressings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure injuries.

Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure.

BACKGROUND: Most people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence-based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision-making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2017 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers.The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study's estimated effect.We present data for four comparisons.One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision.Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short-term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow-up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI -4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision.The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow-up times ranged from short-term (8 weeks or less) to medium-term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD -35.80 days, 95% CI -56.77 to -14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.

Tools, Clinical Prediction Rules, and Algorithms for the Insertion of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review of Literature.

BACKGROUND: First-time peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion success is dependent on patient, clinician, and product factors. Failed PIVC insertion are an under-recognized clinical phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To provide a scoping review of decision aids for PIVC insertion including tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms (TRAs) and their findings on factors associated with insertion success. METHODS: In June 2016, a systematic literature search was performed using the medical subject heading of peripheral catheterization and tool* or rule* or algorithm*. Data extraction included clinician, patient, and/or product variables associated with PIVC insertion success. Information about TRA reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility was also extracted. RESULTS: We screened 36 studies, and included 13 for review. Seven papers reported insertion success ranging from 61%-90% (4030 insertion attempts), 6 on validity, and 5 on reliability, with none reporting on responsiveness and utility. Failed insertions were associated with obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71-1.7; 2 studies) and smaller gauge PIVCs (OR, 6.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI}, 3.4-11.9). Successful inser tions were associated with visible veins (OR, 0.87-3.63; 3 studies) or palpable veins (OR, 0.79-5.05; 3 studies) and inserters with greater procedural volume (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.6-12.1) or who predicted that insertion would be successful (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07). Definitions of insertion difficulty are heterogeneous such as time to insert to a number of failed attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Few well-validated reliable TRAs exist for PIVC insertion. Patients would benefit from a validated, clinically pragmatic TRA that matches insertion difficulty with clinician competency.

Development of a clinical prediction rule to improve peripheral intravenous cannulae first attempt success in the emergency department and reduce post insertion failure rates: the Vascular Access Decisions in the Emergency Room (VADER) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) insertion is one of the most common clinical interventions performed in emergency care worldwide. However, factors associated with successful PIVC placement and maintenance are not well understood. This study seeks to determine the predictors of first time PIVC insertion success in emergency department (ED) and identify the rationale for removal of the ED inserted PIVC in patients admitted to the hospital ward. Reducing failed insertion attempts and improving peripheral intravenous cannulation practice could lead to better staff and patient experiences, as well as improving hospital efficiency. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose an observational cohort study of PIVC insertions in a patient population presenting to ED, with follow-up observation of the PIVC in subsequent admissions to the hospital ward. We will collect specific PIVC observational data such as; clinician factors, patient factors, device information and clinical practice variables. Trained researchers will gather ED PIVC insertion data to identify predictors of insertion success. In those admitted from the ED, we will determine the dwell time of the ED-inserted PIVC. Multivariate regression analyses will be used to identify factors associated with insertions success and PIVC failure and standard statistical validation techniques will be used to create and assess the effectiveness of a clinical predication rule. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings of our study will provide new evidence to improve insertion success rates in the ED setting and identify strategies to reduce premature device failure for patients admitted to hospital wards. Results will unravel a complexity of factors that contribute to unsuccessful PIVC attempts such as patient and clinician factors along with the products, technologies and infusates used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000588594; Pre-results.

Educational support for specialist international medical graduates in anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To measure specialist international medical graduates' (SIMGs) level of learning through participation in guided tutorials, face-to-face or through videoconferencing (VC), and the effect of tutorial attendance and quality of participation on success in specialist college examinations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Tutorials were conducted at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital between 19 September 2007 and 23 August 2010, and delivered through VC to participants at other locations. Tutorials were recorded and transcribed, and speaker contributions were tagged and ranked using content analysis software. Summary examination results were obtained from the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Tutorial participation and attendance, and college examination pass and fail rates. RESULTS: Transcripts were obtained for 116 tutorials. The median participation percentage for those who subsequently failed the college examinations was 1% (interquartile range [IQR], 0%-1%), while for those who passed the exams it was 5% (IQR, 2%-8%; P < 0.001). There was also an association between attendance and exam success; the median (IQR) attendance of those who failed was 24% (IQR, 14%-39%), while for those who passed it was 59% (IQR, 39%-77%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of VC technology was found to be a feasible method to assist SIMGs to become aware of the requirements of the exam and to prepare more effectively.

Workforce education issues for international medical graduate specialists in anaesthesia.

International medical graduate (IMG) specialists in anaesthesia need education to be part of the assessment process for pre-registration college fellowship. Fellowship of the anaesthetic college is required in Australia for registration as a specialist in this field. Marked differences exist between local trainees and IMG specialists in terms of training, stakes of the exam and isolation of practice. We have examined the reasons for the low pass rate for IMG specialists compared to the local trainees in the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) final fellowship examinations. We also offer an IMG specialists' view of this perceived problem. It highlights their difficulties in obtaining adequate supervision and education.