Central Venous Catheter Guidewire Retention: Lessons From England's Never Event Database.

OBJECTIVES: Guidewire retention during central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is considered a "never event." We analyzed the National Health Service England Never Event database (2004-2015) to explore the process of guidewire retention and identify potential preventative measures. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of reported retained guidewire incidents by 3 independent reviewers. RESULTS: There was a rising frequency of reported retained CVC guidewires, with an average of 2 never events per month. Only 11% of retained guidewires are identified during the procedure itself, with the remainder identified during equipment clear-up (6%), after the procedure (4%), at the first check radiograph (23%), or after the first radiograph (55%). In 59 cases, the grade of the operator was reported, and among these, 88% were inserted by trainee doctors. Analysis of causative factors was only possible for 38 cases, and of these, operator's mistake (32%), operator/human error (16%), and distraction (16%) were the most common. Of 163 reported cases, preventative measures instigated were actions taken against the individual clinician (36%), departmental actions such as investigations, additional teaching or reminders (37%), and additional checklists (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Most retained guidewires are discovered after the procedure. Despite the introduction of safety measures, guidewire retention still occurs because the checks, alerts, reminders, and additional checklists all solely rely on the operator remembering not to make the mistake. System changes or design modifications to the CVC equipment are needed to prevent guidewire retention, this being at the top of the hierarchy of intervention effectiveness.

Humidicare - an implementation study of a novel HME safety device designed to prevent ventilator circuit occlusion due to inadvertent dual humidification.

Mechanical ventilation bypasses the protective mechanisms of the upper respiratory tract which are designed to heat and humidify inspired air to 37 °C and 44 mg H2O/L respectively. Artificial humidification systems are therefore incorporated into ventilation circuits to condition cold and dry medical gases before they reach the lower respiratory tract and cause patient harm. Commonly either a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) or a heated humidifier (HH) are utilised for this purpose, however the inadvertent simultaneous use of both devices within the same circuit can cause critical airway occlusion within 24 h. The Humidicare HME (Medovate, Cambridge, UK) is a safety engineered temperature-dependent warning system designed to activate when inadvertently placed into a warm circuit containing a HH. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the Humidicare HME warning system in simulated clinical conditions. The threshold temperature for activation of the device was determined in a digital incubator, and the device was tested for efficacy with a HH present or absent from the breathing circuit. The device performed reliably and activated rapidly when required across all simulations. The Humidicare HME warning system is a simple and unobtrusive device which can effectively alert the operator to the error of dual humidification.

The glucose error in arterial sampling: assessing staff awareness and the effect of sampling technique.

BACKGROUND: Using a dextrose-containing solution, instead of normal saline, to maintain the patency of an arterial cannula results in the admixture of glucose in line samples. This can misguide the clinician down an inappropriate treatment pathway for hyperglycaemia. METHODS: Following a near-miss and subsequent educational and training efforts at our institution, we conducted two simulations: (1) to observe whether 20 staff would identify a 5% dextrose/0.9% saline flush solution as the cause for a patient's refractory hyperglycaemia, and (2) to compare different arterial line sampling techniques for glucose contamination. RESULTS: (1) Only 2/20 participants identified the incorrect dextrose-containing flush solution, with the remainder choosing to escalate insulin therapy to levels likely to risk fatality, and (2) glucose contamination occurred regardless of sampling technique. CONCLUSION: Despite national guidance and local educational efforts, this is still an under-recognised error. Operator-focussed preventative strategies have not been effective and an engineered solution is needed.

A bedside rescue method for retrieving retained guidewires: The 'Suck Out' technique.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheter guidewire retention is classed as a 'never event' in the United Kingdom, with the potential for significant patient harm. If the retained guidewire remains within the central venous catheter lumen, bedside techniques may facilitate guidewire retrieval. However, these techniques may be ineffective if the guidewire has already passed below skin level. We investigated a novel 'suck out' technique for bedside guidewire retrieval and compared this against traditional retrieval methods. METHODS: Simulation 1: in a benchtop model, seven different central venous catheters had their corresponding guidewire placed in the last 2 cm of the catheter tip which was immersed horizontally in fluid. A 50-mL syringe was attached to the distal lumen central venous catheter hub and suction applied for 5 s, and the distance of guidewire retraction was recorded. Simulation 2: a central venous catheter guidewire was intentionally retained within the catheter at either 5 cm above or below skin level in a pigskin model. Simple catheter withdrawal, catheter clamping withdrawal and the 'suck out' method were compared for efficacy using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Simulation 1: retained guidewires were retracted by 13 cm on average. Simulation 2: when guidewires were retained 5 cm above skin level, all retrieval methods were 100% effective; however, when retained 5 cm below skin level, simple catheter withdrawal was ineffective, clamping and withdrawal was only 10% effective and the 'suck out' technique was 90% effective (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The 'suck out' technique can effectively retract guidewires retained within central venous catheter lumens and demonstrates superiority over traditional methods of retained guidewire extraction in simulated models.

A low-volume, low-pressure tracheal tube cuff reduces pulmonary aspiration.

OBJECTIVE: Leakage of fluid from the subglottic space to the lungs occurs along the longitudinal folds within the wall of an inflated high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) cuff. The low-volume, low-pressure (LVLP) cuff does not have these folds yet allows for convenient and reliable control of tracheal wall pressure. Pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia has been linked with postoperative pneumonia and during critical illness causes ventilator-associated pneumonia. DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial; prospective observational study; and benchtop models. SETTING: Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth Hospital. PATIENTS: Anesthetized patients (n=38) and critically ill patients with either an LVLP or HVLP cuffed tracheostomy tube following swallow assessments (n=67). INTERVENTIONS: The LVLP cuff was compared with HVLP cuffs for leakage of dye placed in the subglottic space to the tracheobronchial tree in a rigid tracheal model and a benchtop pig trachea model (before and after a standardized cuff movement). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the rigid tracheal model, the incidence of leakage was 0% in the LVLP group and 100% in the HVLP group (p<.01). Dye leakage in the pig tracheal model with HVLP cuffs was 44% before tube movement, increasing to 79% afterward. The LVLP cuff did not leak in the pig tracheal model. Dye leakage in anesthetized patients was 0% before movement and 5% after in the LVLP group and in the HVLP group 22% increasing to 67% after movement (p<.001). Forty-nine percent of swallow assessments were scored as failed in the critical care patients with HVLP tracheostomy tube cuffs, and there were no episodes of aspiration following swallow assessment in the LVLP group (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The LVLP cuffed tracheal and tracheostomy tubes reduced pulmonary aspiration in the benchtop models and in anesthetized and critically ill patients. The single failure of the LVLP cuff in the anesthesia group was probably associated with accidental endobronchial intubation following tube movement.