RESUMEN
Introduction: Monitoring healthcare quality is challenging in paediatric critical care due to measure variability, data collection burden, and uncertainty regarding consumer and clinician priorities. Objective: We sought to establish a core quality measure set that (i) is meaningful to consumers and clinicians and (ii) promotes alignment of measure use and collection across paediatric critical care. Design: We conducted a multi-stakeholder Delphi study with embedded consumer prioritisation survey. The Delphi involved two surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. Triangulation methods were used to integrate survey findings prior tobefore the consensus meeting. In the consensus panel, broad agreement was reached on a core measure set, and recommendations were made for future measurement directions in paediatric critical care. Setting and participants: Australian and New Zealand paediatric critical care survivors (aged >18 years) and families were invited to rank measure priorities in an online survey distributed via social media and consumer groups. A concurrent Delphi study was undertaken with paediatric critical care clinicians, policy makers, and a consumer representative. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Priorities for quality measures. Results: Respondents to the consumer survey (n = 117) identified (i) nurse-patient ratios; (ii) visible patient goals; and (iii) long-term follow-up as their quality measure priorities. In the Delphi process, clinicians (Round 1 n = 191; Round 2 n = 117 [61% retention]; Round 3 n = 14) and a consumer representative reached broad agreement on a 51-item (61% of 83 initial measures) core measure set. Clinician priorities were (i) nurse-patient ratio; (ii) staff turnover; and (iii) long term-follow up. Measure feasibility was rated low due to a perceived lack of standardised case definitions or data collection burden. Five recommendations were generated. Conclusions: We defined a 51-item core measurement set for paediatric critical care, aligned with clinician and consumer priorities. Next steps are implementation and methodological evaluation in quality programs, and where appropriate, retirement of redundant measures.
RESUMEN
Diagnosis improvement requires physician-nurse collaboration. This study explored nurses' concerns regarding physicians' diagnoses and how they were communicated to physicians. This cross-sectional study, employing a web-based questionnaire, included nurses registered on Japan's largest online media site from June 26, 2023, to July 31, 2023. The survey inquired whether participants felt concerned about a physician's diagnosis within a month, if they communicated their concerns once they arose, and, if not, their reasons. The reasons for not being investigated were also examined. The nurses' frequency of feeling concerned about a physician's diagnosis and the barriers to communicating these concerns to the physician were evaluated. Overall, 430 nurses answered the survey (female, 349 [81.2%]; median age, 45 [35-51] years; median years of experience, 19 [12-25]). Of the nurses, 61.2% experienced concerns about a physician's diagnosis within the past month; 52.5% felt concerned but did not communicate this to the physician. The most common reasons for not communicating included concern about the physician's pride, being ignored when communicating, and the nurse not believing that a diagnosis should be made. Our results highlight the need to foster psychologically safe workplaces for nurses and create educational programs encouraging nurse involvement in diagnosis.
Asunto(s)
Comunicación , Relaciones Médico-Enfermero , Médicos , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estudios Transversales , Médicos/psicología , Japón , Enfermeras y Enfermeros/psicología , Actitud del Personal de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitalized patients. These devices are not benign and are associated with complications. However, clinician awareness of them is variable and poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational point prevalence study to assess awareness of PIV presence among clinicians caring for hospitalized patients in 4 hospitals between May 2018 and February 2019 located in Michigan, USA. We first assessed patients for the presence of a PIV then interviewed their providers. Differences in awareness by provider type were assessed via χ² tests; P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed on Stata MP v16. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients and 4,003 providers were interviewed. Nurses had the greatest awareness of overall PIV presence, 98.6%, while attendings were correct 88.1% of the time. Nurses were more likely to correctly assess PIV presence and exact location than physicians (67.7% vs <30% for all others). Awareness of PIV presence did not significantly vary in patients on contact precautions or those receiving infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the ubiquity of PIVs and known complications, methods to increase awareness to ensure appropriate care and removal are necessary.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs require significant financial investment. The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a physician-led, performance-incentivized, QI intervention that increased appropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. METHODS: The authors used an economic evaluation from a health care sector perspective. Implementation costs included incentive payments to hospitals and costs for data abstractors and the coordinating center. Effectiveness was calculated from propensity score-matched observations across two time periods for complications (venous thromboembolism [VTE], central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], and catheter occlusion): preintervention period (January 2015 through December 2016) and intervention period (January 2017 through December 2021). Cost-effectiveness was presented as the cost-offset per averted complication, reflecting the health care costs avoided due to having lower complication rates. RESULTS: Across 35 hospitals, this study sampled 17,418 PICCs placed preintervention and 26,004 placed during the intervention period. PICC complications decreased significantly following the intervention. CLABSIs decreased from 2.1% to 1.5%, VTEs from 3.2% to 2.3%, and catheter occlusions from 10.8% to 7.0% (all p < 0.01). Estimated number of complications prevented included 871 CLABSIs, 2,535 VTEs, and 8,743 catheter occlusions. Project implementation costs were $31.8 million, and the cost-offset related to avoided complications was $64.4 million. Each participating hospital averaged $932,073 in cost-offset over seven years, and the average cost-offset per complication averted was $2,614 (95% CI [confidence interval] $2,314-$3,003). CONCLUSION: A large-scale, multihospital QI initiative to improve appropriate PICC use yielded substantial return on investment from cost-offset of prevented complications.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Periférico , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Obstrucción del Catéter , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & control , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/economía , Cateterismo Venoso Central/economía , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Cateterismo Periférico/economía , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/organización & administración , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/economía , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & control , Tromboembolia Venosa/economíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine prevalence of technical and behavioral interventions aimed at preventing central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) following the COVID19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: US acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Infection preventionists at participating hospitals. METHODS: Surveys were sent to infection preventionists from a national random sample of 881 US acute care hospitals. Questions covered use of technical interventions to prevent CLABSI (eg, alcohol-containing chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] for skin antisepsis, use of coated catheters), socio-adaptive interventions (eg, feedback of CLABSI rates, use of appropriateness criteria), and leadership support for CLABSI prevention. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 47% (415/881). Technical interventions such as maximal sterile barriers (99%) or CHG-impregnated dressings (92%) were highly prevalent, but routine use of CHG bathing was less common (68% indicated regular use in intensive care unit [ICU] vs 18% in non-ICU settings). Although 97% of respondents indicated use of systems to monitor CLABSI, feedback to providers on CLABSI events was reported by 89%. Only 53% of respondents indicated regular use of tools to determine appropriateness of central venous catheters (CVC). Three-quarters of respondents indicated their hospital assessed CVC necessity daily, but only 23% reported strategies to reduce routine blood cultures. CLABSI prevention was extremely important to hospital leadership at 82% of responding hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Most US hospitals continue to use evidence-based methods to prevent CLABSI as recommended by leading organizations. Opportunities to focus on socio-adaptive interventions such as feedback of infection rates, use of appropriateness criteria for CVC placement, and improving the "culture of pan-culturing" remain.
RESUMEN
Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17â¯290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas , Hospitalización , Neumonía , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/tratamiento farmacológico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neumonía/diagnóstico , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Michigan/epidemiología , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters are often placed by nurse-led vascular access teams (VATs). While some data regarding the effectiveness of these teams exists, less is known about their structure and function. OBJECTIVES: To examine the roles, functions, and composition of VATs related to the use and management of PICC and midline catheters. METHODS: A descriptive, multi-method study that included an online survey of 62 hospitals participating in a quality improvement consortium and qualitative interviews with 74 hospital-based clinicians in 10 sites. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a rapid analysis and matrix approach. The survey, which contained closed-ended, categorical questions, was analyzed using frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: More than 77% (n = 48) of hospitals had an on-site VAT. The average team size was seven nurses; their primary function was device insertion. Interview findings revealed that teams varied in characteristics and functions. Interviewees described the broad role that teams play in device insertion, care and removal, and in educating/training hospital staff. However, we found that teams' role in decision making, particularly related to appropriate device selection, was limited and, in some cases, met with physician resistance. CONCLUSIONS: To realize the full benefit of VATs, changes in hospital culture, along with an increased willingness from physicians to integrate VAT nurses in decision making, may be needed. Future interventions aimed at engaging and empowering teams appear necessary.
Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Venoso Central , Cateterismo Periférico , Humanos , Catéteres de Permanencia , Cateterismo Periférico/métodos , Personal de Hospital , Hospitales de EnseñanzaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956. FINDINGS: Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028â¯% (95â¯% confidence interval (CI): 0.009-0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95â¯% CI: 3.47-5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150â¯% of peripheral intravenous catheters (95â¯% CI: 0.047-0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95â¯% CI: 49.2-86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4â¯% of catheters (95â¯% CI: 31.7-41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95â¯% CI: 4.27-4.57). INTERPRETATION: Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Periférico , Humanos , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most widely used invasive device in hospitals but have serious risks. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a structured assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) improves daily peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and care decisions. DESIGN: Prospective, interrupted time-series study. SETTINGS: Seven adult inpatient wards in three Australian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 825 adults with 867 peripheral intravenous catheters. METHODS: Between August 2017 and December 2018, peripheral intravenous catheter assessments and chart audits were undertaken with informed patient consent. Following a 4-month pre-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures), the I-DECIDED® tool was implemented over 3â¯months (no data collection) using multiple strategies (stakeholder meetings, vascular access device form, education sessions, ward champions, lanyard cards, and posters), followed by a 4-month post-intervention period (with 2-weekly measures). Primary outcomes were device utilization (number of peripheral intravenous catheters per total number of patients screened); idle/unused catheters; insertion site complications, substandard dressing quality; and primary bloodstream infections. RESULTS: Of 2055 patients screened, 1175 (57.2%) had a peripheral intravenous catheter, and 825 patients (867 catheters) consented and were included in the final analysis. Device utilization increased from 42.0% of catheters at baseline to 49.6% post-intervention (absolute risk difference [ARD] 7.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8, 10.3; relative risk [RR] 1.18, 95% CI 1.11, 1.25; pâ¯<â¯0.001). The proportion of idle catheters reduced from 12.7% to 8.3% (ARD -4.4%, 95% CI -8.5, -0.3; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44, 0.97; pâ¯=â¯0.035). Peripheral intravenous catheter complications reduced from 16.1% to 10.9% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -9.7, -0.6; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48, 0.96; pâ¯=â¯0.026). Substandard dressings reduced from 24.6% to 19.5% (ARD -5.2%, 95% CI -10.7, 0.4; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61, 1.02; pâ¯=â¯0.067). Only one primary bloodstream infection occurred (post-intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a comprehensive device assessment and decision tool (I-DECIDED®) reduced idle catheters and catheter complications, despite higher device utilization. Dressing quality improved but was not statistically significant. Further implementation of the tool could improve hospital safety for patients with an intravenous catheter. ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000067370. Date of registration 13 January 2017. Date of first data collection 3rd August 2017. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: #IDECIDEDassessment reduces prevalence of idle peripheral catheters and device complications.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Periférico , Adulto , Humanos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & control , Estudios Prospectivos , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Australia , Catéteres , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Midline catheters (midlines) are increasingly used in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: This study describes current practice and acute complications associated with midlines in CKD patients. DESIGNS, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Trained abstractors at 66 hospitals from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium collected data on a sample of patients who received a midline during hospitalization. Patients were classified as having advanced CKD if their estimated glomerular filtration rate was <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 . MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Midline recipients with advanced CKD were compared to those without advanced CKD by patient, provider, and device characteristics, and by the occurrence of acute complications including major (e.g., upper extremity deep vein thrombosis [UE-DVT] and catheter-related bloodstream infection [CRBSI]) or minor (e.g., catheter occlusion, catheter dislodgement, infiltration, superficial thrombophlebitis, and leaking at insertion site) events. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between catheter-related complications and stage of CKD. RESULTS: Of 21,415 midline recipients, 5272 (24.6%) had advanced CKD, while 16,143 (75.4%) did not. Most midlines were single lumen (90.5%) and remained in place for a median of 6 days. A major or minor midline complication occurred in 804 (15.3%) patients with and 2239 (14.4%) patients without advanced CKD (adjusted odds ratios = 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.14). Among patients with advanced CKD, CRBSI occurred in 13 patients (0.2%) and UE-DVT occurred in 65 patients (1.2%). The proportion of advanced CKD among midline recipients and the frequency of midline-related complications varied across hospitals (interquartile range [IQR] = 19.2% to 29.8% [median = 25.0%] and IQR = 11.0%-18.9% [median = 15.4%], respectively).
Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Venoso Central , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Tromboflebitis , Humanos , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Catéteres , Pacientes , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized patients are at risk for diagnostic errors. Hospitalists caring for these patients are often multitasking when overseeing patient care. We aimed to measure hospitalist workload and understand its influences on diagnostic performance in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, pilot observational study of hospitalists admitting new patients to the hospital. Hospitalists completed an abridged Mindful Attention Awareness Tool and a survey about diagnostic confidence at shift completion. Data on differential diagnoses and resource utilization (e.g., laboratory, imaging tests ordered, and consultations) were collected from the medical record. The number of admissions and paging volume per shift were used as separate proxies for shift busyness. Data were analyzed using linear mixed effects models (continuous outcomes) or mixed effects logistic regression (dichotomous outcomes). RESULTS: Of the 53 hospitalists approached, 47 (89%) agreed to participate; complete data were available for 37 unique hospitalists who admitted 160 unique patients. Increases in admissions (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 3.82; P = 0.04) and pages (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.01) were associated with increased odds of hospitalists finding it "difficult to focus on what is happening in the present." Increased pages was associated with a decrease in the number of listed differential diagnoses (coefficient, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.003; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of hospitalist busyness and its associations with factors that may influence diagnosis in a real-world environment was feasible and demonstrated important implications on physician focus and differential diagnosis.
Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios , Humanos , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Prospectivos , Hospitalización , Errores DiagnósticosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The measurement and identification of plasma biomarkers can support the estimation of risk and diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the association between the levels of potential biomarkers that reflect the activation of the blood system, long-term vascular complications, inflammatory system, and the occurrence of PICC-related DVT. METHODS: Seven electronic databases (Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ERIC) were searched to identify literature published until December 2022. Studies were required to report: (I) adult and pediatric patients, outpatient or admitted to clinical, surgical, or ICU with PICC; (II) patients with PICC-related DVT and patients without PICC-related DVT as a comparator; and (III) at least one biomarker available. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Study precision was evaluated by using a funnel plot for platelets level. We provided a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of the findings on the biomarkers' outcomes of the studies. We pooled the results using random effects meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v5.4. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018108871). RESULTS: Of the 3564 studies identified (after duplication removal), 28 were included. PICC-related DVT was associated with higher D-dimers (0.37 µg/mL, 95% CI 0.02, 0.72; p = 0.04, I2 = 92%; p for heterogeneity < 0.00001) and with higher platelets (8.76 × 109/L, 95% CI 1.62, 15.91; p = 0.02, I2 = 41%; p for heterogeneity = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of D-dimer and platelet were associated with DVT in patients with PICC. However, biomarkers such as APTT, fibrinogen, FDP, glucose, hemoglobin, glycated hemoglobin, INR, prothrombin time, prothrombin fragment 1.2, the thrombin-antithrombin complex, and WBC were not related to the development of DVT associated with PICC.
RESUMEN
Rationale: Little is known about the safety of infusing vasopressors through a midline catheter. Objectives: To evaluate safety outcomes after vasopressor administration through a midline. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of adults admitted to 39 hospitals in Michigan (December 2017-March 2022) who received vasopressors while either a midline or peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was in place. Patients receiving vasopressors through a midline were compared with those receiving vasopressors through a PICC and, separately, to those with midlines in place but who received vasopressors through a different catheter. We used descriptive statistics to characterize and compare cohort characteristics. Multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models were fit to determine the association between vasopressor administration through a midline with outcomes, primarily catheter-related complications (bloodstream infection, superficial thrombophlebitis, exit site infection, or catheter occlusion). Results: Our cohort included 287 patients with midlines through which vasopressors were administered, 1,660 with PICCs through which vasopressors were administered, and 884 patients with midlines who received vasopressors through a separate catheter. Age (median [interquartile range]: 68.7 [58.6-75.7], 66.6 [57.1-75.0], and 67.6 [58.7-75.8] yr) and gender (percentage female: 50.5%, 47.3%, and 43.8%) were similar in all groups. The frequency of catheter-related complications was lower in patients with midlines used for vasopressors than PICCs used for vasopressors (5.2% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001) but similar to midlines with vasopressor administration through a different device (5.2% vs. 6.3%; P = 0.49). After adjustment, administration of vasopressors through a midline was not associated with catheter-related complications compared with PICCs with vasopressors (adjusted odds ratios [aOR], 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.33]; P = 0.23) or midlines with vasopressors elsewhere (aOR, 0.85 [0.46-1.58]; P = 0.59). Midlines used for vasopressors were associated with greater risk of systemic thromboembolism (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.69 [1.31-5.49]; P = 0.008; vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere: aOR, 2.42 [1.29-4.54]; P = 0.008) but not thromboses restricted to the ipsilateral upper extremity (vs. PICCs with vasopressors: aOR, 2.35 [0.83-6.63]; P = 0.10; model did not converge for vs. midlines with vasopressors elsewhere). Conclusions: We found no significant association of vasopressor administration through a midline with catheter-related complications. However, we identified increased odds of systemic (but not ipsilateral upper extremity) venous thromboembolism warranting further evaluation.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Venoso Central , Cateterismo Periférico , Trombosis , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios de Cohortes , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Catéteres , Trombosis/etiología , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), including multilumen PICCs, may increase the risk of patient complications. OBJECTIVE: Implement computerized decision support to: (a) increase the use of midline catheters over PICCs when appropriate and (b) decrease PICC lumens when a PICC is necessary. DESIGNS: Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series. SETTING: Single tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults who received a midline or PICC during clinical care. INTERVENTION: Decision support on appropriate vascular access device choice via a set of electronic orders embedded within the electronic health record. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of midline catheter and single-lumen PICCs placed between January 2, 2017 and November 19, 2017 (preintervention) versus November 20, 2017 to December 1, 2019 (postintervention). RESULTS: A total of 8758 midline and PICCs were inserted during the study period. A statistically significant increase in the insertion of midline catheters was observed during the intervention (p = .006). In parallel, single-lumen PICC insertion as a proportion of all PICCs also increased after the intervention (p = .035). Results were consistent across multiple disciplines, including internal medicine, surgery, and intensive care. After considering the hospital census, total PICC and midline utilization rates and rates of complications did not change over time. However, an increase in catheter exchanges from less to more invasive devices occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, the implementation of electronic decision support to inform appropriate catheter use led to a more appropriate midline catheter and single-lumen PICC insertion. Dissemination of this single, effective intervention to examine efficacy in other hospital settings would be welcomed.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Cateterismo Venoso Central , Cateterismo Periférico , Sistemas de Apoyo a Decisiones Clínicas , Adulto , Humanos , Cateterismo Venoso Central/métodos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Estudios Retrospectivos , Catéteres , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Our study aims to explore the experience of having a central venous access device (CVAD) from the perspective of the child and family and how movements within and outside of hospital environments influence this experience. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted across Children's Health Queensland (Australia), including inpatient and home-care settings. Children less than 18 years with CVADs were eligible and followed for 3 months or CVAD removal. A subgroup of primary caregivers participated in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative measures of child and family CVAD experiences were explored. RESULTS: In total, 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days (3329 [48%] inpatients; 3147 [45%] outpatients; 517 [7%] home). Seventeen participants were interviewed. Experiences of having a CVAD were complex but predominantly positive primarily related to personalized CVAD care, healthcare quality, and general wellbeing. Their experience was shaped by their movements through hospital and home environments, including care variation and distress with procedures. Device selection and insertion location further influenced experience, including safety, impairments in activities of daily living, school, and recreation. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD experiences were influenced by nonmodifiable (e.g., diagnosis) and modifiable factors (e.g., education; care variation). Clinical approaches and policies that account for family and child considerations should be explored. IMPACT: Variation in decision making and management for pediatric CVADs is accepted by many clinicians, but the influence this variation has on the health experience of children and their families is less well explored. This is the first study to draw from a broad range of children requiring CVADs to determine their experience within and outside of healthcare facilities. Interdisciplinary clinicians and researchers need to work collaboratively with children and their families to provide resources and support services to ensure they have positive experiences with CVADs, no matter where they are managed, or who they are managed by.