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).

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.