Survey of staff experiences of potential stigma during the COVID19 pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 on everyone's lives has been significant. However, there is also another factor related to the well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs) and that is how they are perceived by the general public. The aim of this study is to provide insight into the scope of this potential problem and describe how HCWs perceive community views and if this influences provision of patient care. A paper-based survey was conducted within mental health wards and community services as well as medical and surgical wards of a large metropolitan hospital in Queensland. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to explore the dimensionality of the HCW stigma scale from the staff survey. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to assess validity and reliability. A total of 545 staff (67.9% nursing, 6.6% medical, 14.7% Allied Health and 10.8% Administrative) completed the survey between June and July 2020. Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that five factors explained 55% of the variance and represent factors of (i) Alienation, (ii) Social isolation, (iii) Perceived workplace harmony, (iv) Perceived job demands, (v) Clinical self-efficacy. The survey displayed high internal reliability and discriminant validity was observed for all subscales. Australian HCW's reported feeling well supported at work and appreciated by society in general during the pandemic, possibly because Australian healthcare services were better prepared than those countries that first experienced COVID-19.

An inter-specialty cancer training programme curriculum for Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary and multi-professional collaboration is vital in providing better outcomes for patients The aim of the INTERACT-EUROPE Project (Wide Ranging Cooperation and Cutting Edge Innovation As A Response To Cancer Training Needs) was to develop an inter-specialty curriculum. A pilot project will enable a pioneer cohort to acquire a sample of the competencies needed. METHODS: A scoping review, qualitative and quantitative surveys were undertaken. The quantitative survey results are reported here. Respondents, including members of education boards, curriculum committees, trainee committees of European specialist societies and the ECO Patient Advisory Committee, were asked to score 127 proposed competencies on a 7-point Likert scale as to their value in achieving the aims of the curriculum. Results were discussed and competencies developed at two stakeholder meetings. A consultative document, shared with stakeholders and available online, requested views regarding the other components of the curriculum. RESULTS: Eleven competencies were revised, three omitted and three added. The competencies were organised according to the CanMEDS framework with 13 Entrustable Professional Activities, 23 competencies and 127 enabling competencies covering all roles in the framework. Recommendations regarding the infrastructure, organisational aspects, eligibility of trainees and training centres, programme contents, assessment and evaluation were developed using the replies to the consultative document. CONCLUSIONS: An Inter-specialty Cancer Training Programme Curriculum and a pilot programme with virtual and face-to-face components have been developed with the aim of improving the care of people affected by cancer.

Natural Language Processing in Electronic Health Records in relation to healthcare decision-making: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Natural Language Processing (NLP) is widely used to extract clinical insights from Electronic Health Records (EHRs). However, the lack of annotated data, automated tools, and other challenges hinder the full utilisation of NLP for EHRs. Various Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL) and NLP techniques are studied and compared to understand the limitations and opportunities in this space comprehensively. METHODOLOGY: After screening 261 articles from 11 databases, we included 127 papers for full-text review covering seven categories of articles: (1) medical note classification, (2) clinical entity recognition, (3) text summarisation, (4) deep learning (DL) and transfer learning architecture, (5) information extraction, (6) Medical language translation and (7) other NLP applications. This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULT AND DISCUSSION: EHR was the most commonly used data type among the selected articles, and the datasets were primarily unstructured. Various ML and DL methods were used, with prediction or classification being the most common application of ML or DL. The most common use cases were: the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) classification, clinical note analysis, and named entity recognition (NER) for clinical descriptions and research on psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: We find that the adopted ML models were not adequately assessed. In addition, the data imbalance problem is quite important, yet we must find techniques to address this underlining problem. Future studies should address key limitations in studies, primarily identifying Lupus Nephritis, Suicide Attempts, perinatal self-harmed and ICD-9 classification.

Screening for obstructive sleep apnoea in patients with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with serious mental illness (SMI) are at increased risk of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Despite this, OSA is frequently under-recognised in the psychiatric population. This study describes the results of OSA screening in SMI patients. METHOD: Patients with SMI attending a metropolitan mental health clinic were screened for OSA using the OSA50, STOP-BANG Questionnaire (SBQ), Epworth Sleep Score (ESS) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). They were then offered diagnostic sleep testing via ResMed ApneaLinkTM and polysomnography. RESULTS: Of the 65 patients recruited, 65% had a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 85% were on antipsychotic medications and the majority were obese. Approximately 50% of patients reported poor sleep quality via the PSQI, in contrast to 12% with elevated daytime sleepiness via the ESS. 46% of our cohort were at risk of OSA due to an elevated OSA50 or SBQ. Of the five patients who agreed to proceed to diagnostic sleep testing, three were diagnosed with OSA. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients with psychiatric illness are at risk of sleep-disordered breathing. Sleep dissatisfaction is high. The low uptake of sleep investigation requires improved patient engagement to improve OSA diagnosis in this high-risk group.

Zero-Heat-Flux and Esophageal Temperature Monitoring in Orthopedic Surgery: An Observational Study.

PURPOSE: Perioperative hypothermia prevention requires regular, accurate, and consistent temperature monitoring. Zero-heat-flux (ZHF) thermometry offers a non-invasive, measurement method that can be applied across all surgical phases. The purpose of this study was to measure agreement between the zero-heat-flux device and esophageal monitoring, sensitivity, and specificity to detect hypothermia and patient acceptability amongst patients undergoing upper and lower limb orthopedic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study utilized Bland-Altman analysis and Lin's concordance coefficient to measure agreement between devices, sensitivity and specificity to detect hypothermia and assessed patient acceptability amongst 30 patients between December 2018 and June 2019. RESULTS: Bias was observed between devices via Bland Altman, with bias dependent on actual temperature. The mean difference ranged from -0.16°C at 34.9°C (where the mean of ZHF was lower than the esophageal device) to 0.46°C at 37.25°C (where the mean of ZHF was higher than esophageal device), with 95% limits of agreement (max) upper LOA = 0.80 to 1.41, lower LOA = -1.12 to -0.50. Seventy-five percentage of zero-heat-flux measurements were within 0.5°C of esophageal readings. Patient acceptability was high; 96% (n=27) stated that the device was comfortable. CONCLUSION: ZHF device achieved lesser measurement accuracy with core (esophageal) temperature compared to earlier findings. Nonetheless, due to continuous capability, non-invasiveness and patient reported acceptability, the device warrants further evaluation. TITLE REGISTRATION: The study was registered at www.ANZCTR.org.au (reference: ACTRN12619000842167).

Remote Patient Monitoring Using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology and Machine Learning for Early Detection of Suicidal Behaviour in Mental Health Facilities.

Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) has gained great popularity with an aim to measure vital signs and gain patient related information in clinics. RPM can be achieved with noninvasive digital technology without hindering a patient's daily activities and can enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery in acute clinical settings. In this study, an RPM system was built using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology for early detection of suicidal behaviour in a hospital-based mental health facility. A range of machine learning models such as Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and XGBoost were investigated to help determine the optimum fixed positions of RFID reader-antennas in a simulated hospital ward. Empirical experiments showed that Decision Tree had the best performance compared to Random Forest and XGBoost models. An Ensemble Learning model was also developed, took advantage of these machine learning models based on their individual performance. The research set a path to analyse dynamic moving RFID tags and builds an RPM system to help retrieve patient vital signs such as heart rate, pulse rate, respiration rate and subtle motions to make this research state-of-the-art in terms of managing acute suicidal and self-harm behaviour in a mental health ward.

Techniques to select site of insertion for a peripheral intravenous catheter with vessel locating devices using light, sounds or tactile actions (or palpations).

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients admitted to acute hospitals have at least one peripheral intravenous catheter inserted during their admission, for the administration of fluids and medicines, and/or diagnostic tests, so the failure rate is concerning. New technology may decrease these rates even when used by inexperienced inserters. The choice of insertion site for an intravenous catheter is a known predictor of catheter failure. Therefore, the objective for this study was to evaluate the utility of vessel locating devices for novice clinicians to select catheter insertion sites in the forearm. METHODS: An inter-subject incomplete counterbalanced research design was employed with healthy volunteers. Novice clinicians used either a vessel locating device using light or sound waves or they used palpation to identify relatively superficial veins in the forearm. This was compared to site selection performed by an expert clinician using palpation method only. Measurements of differences were analysed from photos of chosen sites. Bland-Altman agreement analysis was used to plot novice expert agreement. The STROBE checklist was followed in reporting this study (Techniques to select site of insertion for a peripheral intravenous catheter with vessel locating devices (Appendix S1)). RESULTS: A total of 32 novice clinicians used three vessel locating devices and a palpation technique. Novice clinicians did not choose more veins for optimum catheter placement when assisted with vessel locating devices compared to palpation techniques. All methods had a similar mean difference between novice and expert measurements and a similar percentage difference in distance from the expert choice. Bland-Altman agreement analysis did not identify any advantage for the novice with vessel locating devices over palpation. CONCLUSION: Vessel locating devices do not enhance the ability of novice clinicians any greater than palpation when selecting suitable forearm veins. If vessel locating device approaches are to be adopted in clinical practice to support better insertion outcomes then current PIVC teaching techniques should include structured vessel locating devices theory and practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Successful insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) on the first attempt is a challenging procedure for nurses. Careful consideration of the selected site of insertion could modify this risk factor for catheter failure. The choice of PIVC insertion site by a novice clinician compared to an expert does not necessarily improve with the use of vein locating technology. While there is a range of technological devices available to assist with locating vessels, there needs to be more emphasis from educators on how to select an appropriate insertion site for intravenous therapy.

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014-19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated. RESULTS: From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.

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).

Implementation of the Safewards model in public mental health facilities: A qualitative evaluation of staff perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The Safewards model is gaining increasing acceptance in the mental health field in Australia and overseas. One of the most important goals of inpatient psychiatric services is to provide a safe and therapeutic environment for both patients and staff. However, this goal can be difficult to achieve if staff-patient interaction is not conducive to preventing violence and aggression. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore nursing staff perceptions of the factors impacting on their capacity to establish Safewards in acute adult inpatient wards. DESIGN: This study was guided by a phenomenological approach to develop a rich understanding of staff perceptions using semi-structured interviews. SETTING AND SAMPLE: The setting was three acute mental health wards attached to general hospitals; one in a large provincial hospital and two in metropolitan hospitals in south-east Queensland. Interview participants were a purposive sample of fifteen registered nurses across each of the three wards. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted at 12 months post-implementation of Safewards. The study was underpinned by Michie's integrative framework of behaviour change that helped identify target areas in order to enhance successful implementation of this model. RESULTS: Content analysis of interview transcripts highlighted a range of factors including failure to address the difficulties encountered by some staff in engaging with Safewards interventions, lack of support from management, poor use of nurse educator time, the 'language' of Safewards, high acuity on the study wards, and staff and patient turnover. CONCLUSION: This study highlights some difficulties with implementing Safewards and maintaining fidelity of the Safewards interventions in busy acute inpatient wards. Although these findings are from a qualitative study consisting of only 15 staff, our results indicate that efforts to implement Safewards need to address challenges faced by staff in engaging with the interventions, ensure buy-in from management, ensure adequate training and support during implementation and review training materials to ensure they fit with the local (i.e. Australian) context. Safewards provides an opportunity for a change in attitudes and development of a more therapeutic ward environment.

Foam dressings for treating pressure injuries in patients of any age in any care setting: An abridged Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are localised areas of injury to the skin and/or underlying tissues. OBJECTIVES: To assess foam dressings compared to other dressings in healing pressure injuries. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: The review team searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Authors also searched clinical trials registries and scanned reference lists for reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports. No restrictions were applied to language, publication date or study setting. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials and cluster- randomised controlled trials that examined the clinical or cost effectiveness of foam dressings for healing pressure injuries. PARTICIPANTS: Patients of any age with a pressure injury of Stage II or above in any care setting. INTERVENTIONS: Use of any foam wound dressing for treating Stage II pressure injuries or above. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Full-text were assessed for eligibility using a priori criteria by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were used to measure the effect. The review team used Review Manager 5 to enter narrative and qualitative data of included studies. RESULTS: Authors found nine studies published between 1994 and 2016 involving 483 participants with pressure injuries at Stage II or above. Included studies compared foam dressings with other types of dressings. However, it was unclear if the foam dressing affected healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78-1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI-4.03-15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-7.65), or reduction in pressure injury size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. LIMITATIONS: Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, the certainty and completeness of evidence was low to very low, making it difficult to draw comparisons between foam and other dressings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure injuries.

Use of Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes Worldwide.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally. SETTING/PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study. Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared. RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication (n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards (n = 22,167, 55%). Two-thirds of all devices were placed in non-recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs (n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of iIn this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.dle PIVCs was 14% (n = 5,796). Overall, 10% (n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% (n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal (n = 8,507). Over one-third of PIVCs (n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half (n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.

Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure.

BACKGROUND: Most people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.

Tools, Clinical Prediction Rules, and Algorithms for the Insertion of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review of Literature.

BACKGROUND: First-time peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion success is dependent on patient, clinician, and product factors. Failed PIVC insertion are an under-recognized clinical phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: To provide a scoping review of decision aids for PIVC insertion including tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms (TRAs) and their findings on factors associated with insertion success. METHODS: In June 2016, a systematic literature search was performed using the medical subject heading of peripheral catheterization and tool* or rule* or algorithm*. Data extraction included clinician, patient, and/or product variables associated with PIVC insertion success. Information about TRA reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility was also extracted. RESULTS: We screened 36 studies, and included 13 for review. Seven papers reported insertion success ranging from 61%-90% (4030 insertion attempts), 6 on validity, and 5 on reliability, with none reporting on responsiveness and utility. Failed insertions were associated with obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71-1.7; 2 studies) and smaller gauge PIVCs (OR, 6.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI}, 3.4-11.9). Successful inser tions were associated with visible veins (OR, 0.87-3.63; 3 studies) or palpable veins (OR, 0.79-5.05; 3 studies) and inserters with greater procedural volume (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.6-12.1) or who predicted that insertion would be successful (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07). Definitions of insertion difficulty are heterogeneous such as time to insert to a number of failed attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Few well-validated reliable TRAs exist for PIVC insertion. Patients would benefit from a validated, clinically pragmatic TRA that matches insertion difficulty with clinician competency.

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence-based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision-making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2017 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers.The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study's estimated effect.We present data for four comparisons.One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision.Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short-term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow-up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI -4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision.The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow-up times ranged from short-term (8 weeks or less) to medium-term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD -35.80 days, 95% CI -56.77 to -14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.