Use of tissue adhesive for neonatal intravenous access devices: A scoping review.

Neonates often require vascular access devices for medication or fluid therapy, but a third of devices fail before treatment completion or end with a complication. For adults and children, securing these devices with tissue adhesive (TA) increases the dwell and reduces complications. However, there is a lack of evidence for the neonatal population. This scoping review aimed to assess the evidence of TA for vascular access devices in neonates. The Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework was used. The inclusion criteria covered studies published from 2007 (when TA was first reported for use in vascular access devices) to June 2024, available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, across six databases. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies using Covidence software, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. From 981 identified studies, 12 were included. Most studies (n = 5, 41.7%) enrolled between 100 and 500 neonates with vascular access devices. Publications originated from four regions and were observational studies (n = 6, 50%), quasi-experimental (n = 3, 25%), and case series (n = 2, 16.7%) with one randomized controlled trial (8.3%) focusing on umbilical venous catheters (UVC). The most common TA composition used was a combination of n-butyl- and 2-octyl- cyanoacrylate (n = 4, 33.3%). The amount of TA applied varied across studies, and often TA was part of a bundle (n = 7, 58.3%). Most studies applied TA to central venous access devices (n = 10, 83.3%) and 2 (16.7%) in peripheral devices. Although there was variation in device failure, the studies generally indicated a reduction in complications such as dislodgment (central catheter: 11.3% [peripherally inserted central catheter {PICC}] to 24.6% [UVC] in non-TA group vs 0.7% [PICC] to 7.7% [UVC] in TA group), device-associated bloodstream infections (central: 7.7% [UVC] and incidence of 2.76/1000 catheter days [PICC] in non-TA group vs 3.1% [UVC] and incidence of 0.99/1000 catheter day [PICC] in TA group), and phlebitis (13% in non-TA group vs 3% in TA-group), as well as increased dwell time in peripheral catheters. Most studies included both term and preterm neonates but did not differentiate between them in their analyses. Skin assessment, life of first dressing, and follow-up of catheters and patients were not reported in most studies. CONCLUSION: TA may reduce complications in vascular access devices, but the evidence in neonates is limited and varied. Many studies include TA as part of bundle, making it difficult to isolate its effects. Additionally, the current evidence lacks robustness due to the design limitations of the studies. Future research should focus on randomized controlled trials to evaluate TA's effectiveness and safety in preventing device failures and complications in neonates, considering different subgroups, to ensure the safety of TA in these nuanced populations. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Research in adults and pediatrics provides evidence supporting the use of tissue adhesive (TA) for vascular access devices, showing a positive impact in reducing failures and complications. • The use of TA in neonates needs to be carefully considered due to their unique characteristics. WHAT IS NEW: • There is a gap in the literature on the use of TA for securing vascular access devices in neonates, particularly regarding its safety and effectiveness in preventing failures and complications. • Further studies are needed to provide robust evidence verifying the effectiveness and safety of TA in this population.

Implementation contexts and strategies for alternative peripherally inserted central catheter material and design selection: A qualitative exploration using CFIR/ERIC approach.

AIM: To explore the implementation contexts and strategies that influence the uptake and selection of alternative peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) materials and design. DESIGN: Qualitative evaluation of end user perspectives within a randomized control trial of different PICC materials and design. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders were undertaken via an adapted, rapid-analytic approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Outcomes were mapped against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool for strategies to guide innovation in PICC practice. RESULTS: Participants (n = 23) represented a combination of users and inserters/purchasers, from adult and paediatric settings. Dominant themes included intervention characteristics (intervention source), inner setting (structural characteristics) and individuals involved (self-efficacy). Strategies emerging to support a change from ERIC mapping (n = 16) included promotion of intervention adaptability, inclusion of staff and consumer perspectives and sufficient funding. Implementation contexts such as inner setting and individuals involved equally impacted PICC success and implementation effectiveness and enabled a greater understanding of barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation in this trial. CONCLUSION: Trial evidence is important, but healthcare decision-making requires consideration of local contexts especially resourcing. Implementation contexts for Australian healthcare settings include a practical, strategic toolkit for the implementation of alternative PICC materials and designs. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to COREQ guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. AIM: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. DESIGN: Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study. METHODS: A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. CONCLUSION: Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. IMPACT: Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: Consumer led co-creation.

PURPOSE: Children with chronic and complex health conditions frequently need intravenous devices. The current approach to intravenous device selection, insertion, and monitoring is inconsistent, and healthcare consumers are often negatively affected by siloed health information, and poor future planning. Despite child- and family-centred care being recognised as a pillar of paediatric nursing care, limited implementation for vascular access device planning and management is evident. DESIGN AND METHODS: To address this, we conducted a multi-phased approach to co-create, then evaluate, a mobile health (mHealth) application: IV Passport. Co-creation involved a prioritisation survey, followed by a Passport advisory panel consensus meeting. Following confirmation of the required content and features of the Passport, the mHealth application was designed and content validation achieved via survey. RESULTS: The prioritisation survey yielded recommendations for seven features (e.g., graphical presentations of current/past devices). Content for nine device types (e.g., totally implanted ports) was suggested, each with 10 related items (e.g., insertion site). Content items for device-associated complications, future vascular access plans, and educational resources were also suggested. Following design, the application was released through Apple and Android platforms; and adapted to a paper version. Content validation was established; 100% strongly agreed the application was easy to use; 80% agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend the Passport to others. CONCLUSION: IV Passport embodies effective child- and family-centred care through consumer co-creation to empower patients and families manage vascular access devices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: IV Passport remains active; and can be utilised across many healthcare settings and patient populations.

Experiences of children with central venous access devices: a mixed-methods study.

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.

Improving difficult peripheral intravenous access requires thought, training and technology (DART3): a stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most used invasive medical device in healthcare. Yet around half of insertion attempts are unsuccessful leading to delayed medical treatments and patient discomfort of harm. Ultrasound-guided PIVC (USGPIVC) insertion is an evidence-based intervention shown to improve insertion success especially in patients with Difficult IntraVenous Access (BMC Health Serv Res 22:220, 2022), however the implementation in some healthcare settings remains suboptimal. This study aims to co-design interventions that optimise ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in patients with DIVA, implement and evaluate these initiatives and develop scale up activities. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in three hospitals (two adult, one paediatric) in Queensland, Australia. The intervention will be rolled out across 12 distinct clusters (four per hospital). Intervention development will be guided by Michie's Behavior Change Wheel with the aim to increase local staff capability, opportunity, and motivation for appropriate, sustainable adoption of USGPIVC insertion. Eligible clusters include all wards or departments where > 10 PIVCs/week are typically inserted. All clusters will commence in the control (baseline) phase, then, one cluster per hospital will step up every two months, as feasible, to the implementation phase, where the intervention will be rolled out. Implementation strategies are tailored for each hospital by local investigators and advisory groups, through context assessments, staff surveys, and stakeholder interviews and informed by extensive consumer interviews and consultation. Outcome measures align with the RE-AIM framework including clinical-effectiveness outcomes (e.g., first-time PIVC insertion success for DIVA patients [primary outcome], number of insertion attempts); implementation outcomes (e.g., intervention fidelity, readiness assessment) and cost effectiveness outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework will be used to report the intervention as it was implemented; how people participated in and responded to the intervention; contextual influences and how the theory underpinning the intervention was realised and delivered at each site. A sustainability assessment will be undertaken at three- and six-months post intervention. DISCUSSION: Study findings will help define systematic solutions to implement DIVA identification and escalation tools aiming to address consumer dissatisfaction with current PIVC insertion practices. Such actionable knowledge is critical for implementation of scale-up activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12621001497897).

The parent, child and young person experience of difficult venous access and recommendations for clinical practice: A qualitative descriptive study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Explore the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access and identify ideas and preferences for changes to clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion is one of the most common invasive procedures in hospitalised paediatric patients. Multiple insertion attempts in paediatric patients are common and associated with pain and distress. Little research has explored the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access nor sought to identify their suggestions to improve clinical practice. DESIGN: Qualitative description. METHODS: A purposive sampling approach was used to identify children and young people with experience of difficult venous access and their parents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with sample size based on data saturation. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were 12 participants, seven parents and five children/young people (five parent/child dyads and two individual parents). Analysis of the data revealed three main themes: (1) Distress-before, during and after (2) Families navigating the system: the challenging journey from general clinician to specialist and (3) Difficult venous access impacts both treatment and life outside the hospital A pre-determined theme, (4) Recommendations for good clinical practice is also described. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple attempts to insert a peripheral intravenous catheter are a source of substantial distress for children/young people, leading to treatment avoidance. Effective interpersonal skills, providing choice and avoiding frightening language are important to minimise distress. Clinicians without specialist training should assess each child's venous access experience and consider immediate referral to a specialist if they have a history of difficult venous access. Cultural change is required so clinicians and healthcare services recognise that repeated cannulation may be a source of psychological distress for children/young people.

Safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. AIM: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. DESIGN: A parallel-group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. METHODS: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post-insertion failure. RESULTS: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post-insertion failure compared to midline catheters. CONCLUSION: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi-centre trial to confirm findings is feasible.

Quality measurement and surveillance platforms in critically ill children: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The objective of this study was to describe current surveillance platforms which support routine quality measurement in paediatric critical care. METHOD: Scoping review. The search strategy consisted of a traditional database and grey literature search as well as expert consultation. Surveillance platforms were eligible for inclusion if they collected measures of quality in critically ill children. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 21 surveillance platforms, collecting 57 unique outcome (70%), process (23%), and structural (7%) quality measures. Hospital-associated infections were the most commonly collected outcome measure across all platforms (n = 11; 52%). In general, case definitions were not harmonised across platforms, with the exception of nationally mandated hospital-associated infections (e.g., central line-associated blood stream infection). Data collection relied on manual coding. Platforms typically did not provide an evidence-based rationale for measures collected, with no identifiable reports of co-designed, consensus-derived measures or consumer involvement in measure selection or prioritisation. CONCLUSIONS: Quality measurement in critically ill children lacks uniformity in definition which limits local and international benchmarking. Current surveillance activities for critically ill children focus heavily on outcome measurement, with process, structural, and patient-reported measures largely overlooked. Long-term outcome measures were not routinely collected. Harmonisation of paediatric intensive care unit quality measures is needed and can be achieved using prioritisation and consensus/co-design methods.

Ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

Ultrasound-guided insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) is an alternative to traditional anatomical landmark-based insertion. However, data on its performance in paediatric patients of varying levels of difficult intravenous access are limited. The researchers hypothesise that ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion will increase first-attempt success compared with landmark technique. This randomised, parallel-group, single-centre, superiority trial commenced recruiting in July 2021, including hospitalised children (aged 0 (>37 weeks gestation) to 18 years) requiring a PIVC. It will recruit 180 children, stratified by degree of perceived difficulty, and centrally randomised into two groups (ratio 1:1). The primary outcome is first-attempt PIVC insertion success. Secondary outcomes include total number of PIVC insertion attempts, PIVC insertion failure, post-insertion complications, dwell time, patient/parent satisfaction, and healthcare costs. The current study will inform the superiority of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion in comparison with landmark technique. Adoption by healthcare facilities might improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.

Pediatric central venous access devices: practice, performance, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is reliant on a functional central venous access device (CVAD), but the knowledge surrounding the burden of pediatric CVAD-associated harm is limited. METHODS: A prospective cohort study at a tertiary-referral pediatric hospital in Australia. Children <18 years undergoing insertion of a CVAD were screened from the operating theatre and intensive care unit records, then assessed bi-weekly for up to 3 months. Outcomes were CVAD failure and complications, and associated healthcare costs (cost of complications). RESULTS: 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days, with peripherally inserted central catheters most common (n = 119; 60%). CVAD failure occurred in 20% of devices (n = 30; 95% CI: 15-26), at an incidence rate (IR) of 5.72 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 4.09-7.78). CVAD complications were evident in 43% of all CVADs (n = 86; 95% CI: 36-50), at a rate of 12.29 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 9.84-15.16). CVAD failure costs were A$826 per episode, and A$165,372 per 1000 CVADs. Comparisons between current and recommended practice revealed inconsistent use of ultrasound guidance for insertion, sub-optimal tip-positioning, and appropriate device selection. CONCLUSIONS: CVAD complications and failures represent substantial burdens to children and healthcare. Future efforts need to focus on the inconsistent use of best practices. IMPACT: Current surveillance of central venous access device (CVAD) performance is likely under-estimating actual burden on pediatric patients and the healthcare system. CVAD failure due to complication was evident in 20% of CVADs. Costs associated with CVAD complications average at $2327 (AUD, 2020) per episode. Further investment in key diverse practice areas, including new CVAD types, CVAD pathology-based occlusion and dislodgment strategies, the appropriate use of device types, and tip-positioning technologies, will likely lead to extensive benefit.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion with landmark technique in paediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion using traditional landmark insertion technique can be difficult. AIM: To systematically review the evidence comparing landmark to ultrasound guidance for PIVC insertion in general paediatric patients. STUDY DESIGN: Cochrane methodology to systematically search for randomised controlled trials comparing landmark to ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, US National Library of Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Embase. DATA EXTRACTION: English-language, paediatric trials published after 2000, reporting first-attempt insertion success, overall PIVC insertion success, and/or time to insert were included. Central venous, non-venous and trials including only difficult intravenous access were excluded. Data were independently extracted and critiqued for quality using GRADE by three authors, and analysed using random effects, with results expressed as risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Registration (CRD42020175314). RESULTS: Of 70 titles identified, 5 studies (995 patients; 949 PIVCs) were included. There was no evidence of an effect of ultrasound guidance, compared to landmark, for first-attempt insertion success (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.90-1.78; I2  = 88%; moderate quality evidence), overall insertion success (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.90-1.44; I2  = 82%; low quality evidence), or time to insertion (mean difference -3.03 min; 95% CI -12.73 to 6.67; I2  = 92%; low quality evidence). LIMITATIONS: Small sample sizes, inconsistent outcomes and definitions in primary studies precluded definitive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Large clinical trials are needed to explore the effectiveness of ultrasound guidance for PIVC insertion in paediatrics. Specifically, children with difficult intravenous access might benefit most from this technology.

Improving peripheral venous cannula insertion in children: a mixed methods study to develop the DIVA key.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a difficult intravenous access risk assessment and escalation pathway, to increase first time intravenous insertion success in paediatrics. METHODS: Mixed methods underpinned by literature and co-production principles. Iterative development of the instrument was informed through semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops. The instrument includes a risk assessment, inserter skill self-assessment, and escalation pathways. Reproducibility, reliability, and acceptability were evaluated in a prospective cohort study at a quaternary paediatric hospital in Australia. RESULTS: Interview data (three parents, nine clinicians) uncovered two themes: i) Recognition of children with DIVA and subsequent escalation is ad hoc and problematic; and ii) Resources and training impact inserter confidence and ability. Three workshops were delivered at monthly intervals (February-April 2020) involving 21 stakeholders culminating in the co-production of the "DIVA Key". The DIVA Key was evaluated between May-December 2020 in 78 children; 156 clinicians. Seventy-eight paired assessments were undertaken with substantial agreement (concordance range = 81.5 to 83.0%) between the assessors. Interrater reliability of the DIVA risk assessment was moderate (kappa = 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.80). The DIVA Key predicted multiple insertion attempts for red (high risk) DIVA classification (relative risk ratio 5.7, 95% CI 1.2-27.1; reference low risk). Consumer and clinician satisfaction with DIVA Key was high (median (IQR) = 10 [8-10]; 8 [8-10 respectively). CONCLUSION: The DIVA Key is a straightforward, reliable instrument with inbuilt escalation pathway to support the identification of children with difficult intravenous access.

Comparison of midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters to reduce the need for general anesthesia in children with respiratory disease: A feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters. METHODS: Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (<18 years) to receive (i) midline catheter and (ii) peripherally inserted central catheters. Primary outcome was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and acceptability), and the primary clinical outcome was general anesthesia requirement for intravenous catheter insertion. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: insertion time, treatment delays, infusion efficiency, device failure, complications, and cost. RESULTS: There was 80% recruitment, 100% retention, no missing data, and high patient/staff acceptability. Mean patient experience assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.0 peripherally inserted central catheters and 9.0 (midline catheters), respectively. Participant eligibility was not achieved (49% of screened patients) and moderate protocol-adherence across groups (89% peripherally inserted central catheters vs. 76% midline catheter). Insertion of midline catheter for pulmonary optimization reduced the requirement for general anesthesia compared to peripherally inserted central catheters (10% vs. 69%; odds ratio = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.00-0.09). Midline catheters failed more frequently (18.1 vs. 5.5 peripherally inserted central catheters per 1000 catheter-days); however, this reduced over trial duration. Midline catheter insertion compared to peripherally inserted central catheters saved AUD$1451 per pulmonary optimization episode. CONCLUSIONS: An efficacy trial is feasible with expanded eligibility criteria and intensive staff training when introducing a new device. Midline catheter for peripherally compatible infusions is acceptable to patients and staff, might negate the need for general anesthesia and results in significant cost savings.

An Implementation Framework for the Clinically Indicated Removal Policy for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters.

BACKGROUND: Equivalent clinical outcomes, lower costs, and fewer invasive procedures have resulted in revised recommendations for the removal of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) from the traditional 72- to 96-hourly removal to removal based upon clinical indication. PROBLEM: Uptake of this evidence-based innovation to health systems is often delayed, in part due to the lack of a guiding framework for successful implementation strategies to guide systems to transition to and sustain clinically indicated PIVC removal. APPROACH: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to reflect on strategies likely important for the successful implementation of PIVC removal evidence into policy and practice. OUTCOMES: We discuss and provide a critique of salient strategies for successful implementation of clinically indicated PIVC removal with regard to intervention characteristics, the outer and inner settings, characteristics of individuals, and implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of clinically indicated PIVC removal can be achieved through planned and systematic processes within the CFIR framework.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of dressing and securement methods to prevent arterial catheter failure in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients in an intensive care setting often require arterial catheters for blood pressure monitoring and arterial blood collection. Arterial catheter failure, which manifests in both mechanical and infective forms, remains common. Dressing and securement inadequacies may impact this failure; however, the best method for dressing and securing arterial catheters is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing methods for dressing and securing arterial catheters and to prevent device failure in an adult intensive care setting. METHODS: A pilot, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial was conducted between April 2017 and June 2018. Patients receiving treatment in two adult intensive care units (Queensland, Australia) were eligible for inclusion and were allocated to receive either (i) an integrated securement dressing or (ii) a simple polyurethane dressing (with gauze/foam), applied to their newly inserted arterial catheters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were (i) feasibility (defined by pre-established criteria: patient eligibility, consent, protocol adherence, retention, and staff acceptability) and (ii) all-cause arterial catheter failure (a composite of local and bloodstream infection, occlusion, dislodgement, infiltration/extravasation, arterial inflammation, thrombosis, and/or inaccurate trace). Secondary outcomes included: failure type, dwell time, dressing adhesion, adverse event profiles, and staff acceptability. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were studied (n = 53 integrated securement dressing; n = 56 simple polyurethane). The feasibility criterion was met by most patients (including rates of consent [86%], protocol adherence [93%], and retention [100%]); however, the criteria for patient eligibility were not met (73%). All-cause device failure did not differ significantly between the integrated securement device group (n = 12/53, 23%) and the simple polyurethane group (n = 6/56, 11%) (hazard ratio = 2.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-6.37, p = 0.083). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a larger study is feasible, with minor alterations to recruitment methods required. Arterial catheter failure remains unacceptably common; further research to determine optimal dressing/securement practices is urgently needed.

Flushing of peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot, factorial, randomised controlled trial of high versus low frequency and volume in paediatrics.

AIM: To test the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing different flushing frequencies and volumes to reduce peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) failure in paediatric inpatients. METHODS: Pilot, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial comparing PIVC flushing techniques in intervention pairs: (i) low volume (3 mL) versus high volume (10 mL); and (ii) low frequency (24 hourly) versus high frequency (6 hourly). Patients were excluded if: fluids were restricted, weight < 5 kg, PIVC already in situ for >24 h or continuous infusion. The primary end-point was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data and sample size estimates) of a large trial. Secondary end-points were PIVC failure (composite and individual), bloodstream infection and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 919 children were screened from April to November 2015, with 55 enrolled. Screening feasibility criteria were not met, mainly due to continuous infusions and PIVCs in situ >24 h or planned for imminent removal. However, 80% of eligible participants consented, 2% withdrew, protocol adherence was 100%, and there was no missing primary end-point data. PIVC failure was significantly higher (hazard ratio = 2.90, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-7.54) in the 3 mL compared to the 10 mL group. There was no difference in failure between frequency groups (hazard ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-2.33). There was no interaction effect (P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Trial feasibility proved challenging due to eligibility criteria, which could be improved with additional recruiting staff. Firm conclusions cannot be made based on this small sample, but flush volume may impact PIVC failure.

Development of a paediatric central venous access device database: A retrospective cohort study of practice evolution and risk factors for device failure.

AIM: To describe practice evolution, complications and risk factors for multiple insertion attempts and device failure in paediatric central venous access devices (CVADs). METHODS: A paediatric retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from CVAD database 2012-2014. Data included were patient (i.e. age, condition), insertion (i.e. indication, device, technique) and removal (complications, dwell). Descriptive statistics and incidence rates were calculated per calendar year and compared. Risk factors for multiple insertion attempts and failure were explored with logistic regression and cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1308 CVADs were observed over 273 467 catheter-days in 863 patients. Multiple insertion attempts remained static (14%) and significantly associated with non-haematological oncology (odds ratio 2.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-4.43), respiratory (3.71; 1.10-12.5), gastroenterology (4.18; 1.66-10.5) and other (difficult intravenous access) (2.74; 1.27-5.92). CVAD failure decreased from 35% (2012) to 25% (2014), incidence rate from 1.50 (95% CI 1.25-1.80) to 1.28 (1.06-1.54) per 1000 catheter-days. Peripherally inserted CVAD failure was significantly associated with lower body weight (per kilogram decrease, hazard ratio (HR) 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03), cephalic vein (1.62; 1.05-2.62), difficult access (1.92; 1.02-3.73), sub-optimal tip placement (1.69; 1.06-2.69) and gastroenterology diagnosis (2.27; 1.05-4.90). Centrally placed CVAD failure was significantly associated with younger age (per year, HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00-1.07), tunnelled device (3.38; 2.41-4.73) and gastroenterology diagnosis (1.70; 1.06-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: While advancement in CVAD practices improved overall CVAD insertion and failure outcomes, further improvements and innovation are necessary to ensure improved vessel health and preservation for children requiring CVAD.

Smile - Secure my intravenous line effectively: A pilot randomised controlled trial of peripheral intravenous catheter securement in paediatrics.

AIM: Evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy randomised control trial (RCT) of paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) securement to prevent failure without resultant skin damage. METHODS: A 3-arm, pilot RCT in an Australian paediatric hospital. Random assignment of 330 children to receive (i) bordered polyurethane dressing (BPU) + non-sterile foam (NSF), (ii) integrated securement dressing (ISD) + sterile foam (SF), or (iii) tissue adhesive (TA)+ NSF. Primary outcomes were feasibility and PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: skin/bloodstream infection; occlusion; infiltration; dislodgement; phlebitis; dwell; serious adverse events; acceptability and microbial colonisation of catheter tips, wound site, and foam. RESULTS: Most feasibility outcomes were confirmed; 98% of eligible patients consented, 96% received their allocated dressing and no patients were lost to follow up. Eligilbility feasibility (58%) was not met. 11 randomised patients did not require a PIVC. Of 319 patients receiving a PIVC (20,716 PIVC-hours), a significant reduction in PIVC failure was demonstrated with ISD, 31/107 (29%, p = 0.017) compared to BPU, 47/105 (45%). Although not statistically significant, compared to BPU, TA 34/107 (32%, p = 0.052) was associated with less PIVC failure. On Cox regression, no securement intervention significantly reduced PIVC failure. Older age (HR 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.96; p = <0.01), no infection at baseline (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34-0.78) and insertion by vascular access specialist (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.26-0.64) were significantly associated with reduced failure (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ISD and TA had reduced PIVC failure compared to BPU. A large efficacy trial to test statistical differences is feasible and needed.

Implementation of a paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter care bundle: A quality improvement initiative.

AIM: To improve paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care through the implementation of care bundles. METHODS: A pre-post study using mixed methods (clinical audit, staff survey, parent interviews) in 2016 at a tertiary paediatric hospital in Brisbane was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a PIVC insertion and maintenance bundle to improve PIVC insertion, promote function and support practice. Participants included children with PIVC, parents and staff inserting and managing PIVCs. A mnemonic care bundle, SUCCESS PIVCS (At insertion: Skills, Understand and prepare, Consent, Clean site, Escalate, Secure, Sign and document. During management: Prompt removal, Inspect hourly, Vein patency, Clean hands and Scrub the hub), was developed and implemented via visual aids, workshops and change champions. During audit, PIVC first-attempt insertion success, PIVC failure, PIVC dwell, escalation to senior clinicians and insertion and management procedures were measured. RESULTS: Pre-implementation audit (n = 102) and survey (n = 117) data described high rates of PIVC failure (n = 50; 49%), difficulty obtaining equipment (n = 64; 55%) and pressure to insert (n = 50; 43%). Parent interviews (n = 15) identified lack of communication, fear, appreciation of skilled technicians and technology and care giver roles as key to improving the experience. After implementation first-attempt insertion success (45 vs. 62%; risk ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78), first-attempt escalation to senior clinicians (junior doctor 72 vs. 41%; P = <0.001) and median PIVC dwell (40 vs. 52 h; P = 0.021) improved. CONCLUSION: This multi-level care bundle demonstrated improvements in the insertion and management of PIVCs; however, PIVC failure remained high.