ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are common vascular access devices inserted for adults undergoing intravenous treatment in the community setting. Individuals with a PICC report challenges understanding information and adapting to the device both practically and psychologically at home. There is a lack of research investigating the supportive care needs of individuals with a PICC to inform nursing assessment and the provision of additional supports they may require to successfully adapt to life with a PICC. The aim of this study was to identify the supportive care needs of adults with cancer or infection living with a PICC at home. METHOD: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were used to identify supportive care needs of adults living with a PICC at home. Participants were recruited from cancer and infectious diseases outpatient units. Two researchers independently analysed transcripts using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15 participants were interviewed (30-87 years old). There were 5 males and 10 females interviewed, 9 participants had a cancer diagnosis and most lived in a metropolitan area. Many participants lived with a partner/spouse at home and three participants had young children. Participants identified supportive care needs in the following eight categories (i (i) Adapting daily life (ii) Physical comfort (iii) Self-management (iv) Emotional impact (v) Information content (vi) Understanding information (vii) Healthcare resources and (viii) Social supports. CONCLUSIONS: Adults living with a PICC at home report a broad range of supportive care needs. In addition to practical and information needs, health consumers may also require support to accept living with a device inside their body and to assume responsibility for the PICC. These findings may provide nurses with a greater understanding of individual needs and guide the provision of appropriate supports.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Map existing research and describe the consumer/caregiver experience of community-based intravenous treatment, central venous access devices (CVADs), supportive care needs, and information preferences. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Five databases (Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane library, Emcare, Embase, and Medline) were searched. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. FINDINGS: Forty-eight studies were included. CONCLUSIONS: Although community-based intravenous treatment and CVADs have a significant impact on consumers and caregivers, there is scant research on their supportive care needs and information preferences. CLINICAL EVIDENCE: Some consumers and caregivers may require additional support while undergoing community-based intravenous treatment.
Subject(s)
Caregivers , HumansABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of individual and system adverse events associated with blood transfusion at home. BACKGROUND: Home or residential care facility based blood transfusion is beneficial for individuals requiring transfusion due to reduced disruption to daily life and the comfort of a familiar environment. However, blood transfusion may result in serious adverse events. There is a lack of research in this area, and there is a need to identify rates of adverse events and evaluate the system used for this service. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Existing data routinely collected for clinical care were used to determine client and system adverse events of medically stable adults with a chronic disease who underwent blood transfusion in a home setting provided by a nurse-led service. A STROBE EQUATOR checklist was used for this study (see Appendix S1). RESULTS: There were 1790 episodes of care involving 533 participants, with 13 cases of transfusion reaction (incident rate [IR] 0.7%; 95% CI 0.43-1.25). Only five of these were severe, resulting in the cessation of the blood transfusion and further medical review or hospital admission (IR 0.28%; 95% CI 0.12-0.68). There were no cases of tampered blood packaging, expired or visually damaged blood products. There were 10 cases of incorrect paperwork (0.6%) and nine cases of incorrect temperature (0.5%). There were 153 cases of vascular access device adverse events (IR 8.5% 95% CI 7.3-9.9), most commonly, difficulty cannulating the individual (n = 82, 54%). CONCLUSIONS: A nurse-led home blood transfusion service was associated with low rates of both individual and system adverse events. Further research is needed to explore the perception of those using this service and supports required to improve the experience. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Blood transfusions may be associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This risk may be increased in a home setting due to the distance from an acute care facility. This study has demonstrated that a nurse-led home blood transfusion service is safe (<1% adverse event rate) for those with a medically stable, chronic condition. There were few failures in the system used to provide this service. Adverse events associated with the vascular access device were the most common complication and the reason for most blood product wastage. Mainly, this was due to difficulty inserting the short-term peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC). RNs should consider ultrasound to aid PIVC insertion to facilitate treatment provision and enhance the experience of the individual.