Does longer peripheral intravenous catheter length optimise antimicrobial delivery? Protocol for the LEADER study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised patients receiving intravenous antimicrobial therapy require a reliable device through which this is delivered. Short peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the default device for antimicrobial therapy but up to half fail before therapy completion, leading to suboptimal drug dosing, patient distress from repeated insertions, and increased healthcare costs. This study will investigate the use of long PIVCs to determine if they are more reliable at delivering antimicrobial therapy. METHODS: A two-arm, parallel randomised controlled trial of hospitalised adults requiring at least 3 days of peripherally compatible intravenous antimicrobials. Participants will be randomised to a short (<4 cm) or long (4.5-6.4 cm) PIVC. After interim analysis ( n=70) for feasibility and safety, 192 participants will be recruited. Primary outcome is disruption to antimicrobial administration from all-cause PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes include: number of devices to complete therapy, patient-reported pain and satisfaction, and a cost analysis. Ethical and regulatory approvals have been received.

Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and use of ultrasound in patients with difficult intravenous access: Australian patient and practitioner perspectives to inform future implementation strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US). METHODS: Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies. RESULTS: In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) 'Escalation' is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward-'measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use. CONCLUSION(S): DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation.

Point prevalence of suboptimal footwear features among ambulant older hospital patients: implications for fall prevention.

Objective The aim of the present study was to establish the point prevalence of 'suboptimal' features in footwear reported to have been used by older hospital patients when ambulating, and to explore underpinning factors for their choice of footwear. Method A cross-sectional investigation was undertaken on 95 of 149 eligible in-patients across 22 high fall-risk wards in a large metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Results Over 70% of participants experienced an unplanned admission. Although most participants had access to some form of footwear in hospital (92%), nearly all reported ambulating in footwear with 'suboptimal' features (99%). Examples included slippers (27%), backless slippers (16%) or bare feet (27%). For patients who ambulated in bare feet, only one-third reported 'lack of access to footwear' as the primary cause, with others citing foot wounds, pain, oedema and personal choice as the main reason for bare foot ambulation. Conclusions Admitted patients frequently use footwear with 'suboptimal' features for ambulation in hospital. While some footwear options (for example well-fitting slippers) could be suited for limited in-hospital ambulation, others are clearly hazardous and might cause falls. Since footwear choices are influenced by multiple factors in this population, footwear education strategies alone may be insufficient to address the problem of hazardous footwear in at-risk patients. Footwear requirements may be more effectively addressed within a multidisciplinary team approach encompassing foot health, mobility and safety. What is known about the topic? Accidental falls while ambulating are an important health and safety concern for older people. Because certain footwear characteristics have been negatively linked to posture and balance, and specific footwear types linked to falls among seniors, the use of footwear with fewer suboptimal characteristics is generally recommended as a means of reducing the risk of falling. While footwear usage and choices have been explored in older people in the community and in residential care settings, there is little comparable data on acutely unwell older hospital patients. What does this paper add? This paper provides prevalence data on the use of footwear with suboptimal characteristics among ambulant older hospital patients, and identifies concurrent factors that may be relevant to patient footwear choices. What are the implications for practitioners? Pain, foot pathology and a desire to retain independence are important concerns for hospitalised patients and are likely to influence their choice of footwear used to ambulate with. Pragmatic team-based approaches that remain sensitive to key patient concerns may be more successful in optimising patient footwear usage than footwear education strategies alone.

Effects of frequent PATient moves on patient outcomes in a large tertiary Hospital (the PATH study): a prospective cohort study.

Objective The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence of and patient outcomes associated with frequent patient moves. Methods In a prospective cohort study, any bed move and the reason for the move were documented. Patients were assessed on admission for anxiety, social support and delirium. Adverse events, length of stay and satisfaction were recorded. Patients moved three or more times were compared with those moved less than three times. Results In all, 566 patients admitted to a tertiary referral hospital were included in the study. Of these, 156 patients (27.6%) were moved once, 46 (8.1%) were moved twice and 28 (4.9%) were moved at least three times. Those moved three or more times were almost threefold more likely to have an adverse event recorded compared with those moved fewer times (relative risk (RR) 2.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18, 6.42; P=0.02) and to have a hospital stay twice as long (RR 7.10; 95% CI 2.60, 11.60; P=0.002). Levels of satisfaction and anxiety were not affected by frequent moves and there was no effect on delirium. Conclusion Frequent bed moves affect patient safety and prolong length of stay. What is known about the topic? Retrospective and qualitative studies suggest that patient safety and costs may be affected by frequent patient moves. What does this paper add? The present study is the first prospective study to assess the negative effects of frequent patient moves on specific patient outcomes, such as adverse events, length of stay and satisfaction with care. What are the implications for practitioners? Within- and between-ward moves may affect patient safety. Patients should be moved only when there is a clear and unavoidable reason for doing so.