Preventing adverse events during paediatric cancer treatment: protocol for a multi-site hybrid randomised controlled trial of catheter lock solutions (the CLOCK trial).

INTRODUCTION: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are commonly used for the treatment of paediatric cancer patients. Catheter locking is a routine intervention that prevents CVAD-associated adverse events, such as infection, occlusion and thrombosis. While laboratory and clinical data are promising, tetra-EDTA (T-EDTA) has yet to be rigorously evaluated or introduced in cancer care as a catheter lock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a two-arm, superiority type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial conducted at seven hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. Randomisation will be in a 3:2 ratio between the saline (heparinised saline and normal saline) and T-EDTA groups, with randomly varied blocks of size 10 or 20 and stratification by (1) healthcare facility; (2) CVAD type and (3) duration of dwell since insertion. Within the saline group, there will be a random allocation between normal and heparin saline. Participants can be re-recruited and randomised on insertion of a new CVAD. Primary outcome for effectiveness will be a composite of CVAD-associated bloodstream infections (CABSI), CVAD-associated thrombosis or CVAD occlusion during CVAD dwell or at removal. Secondary outcomes will include CABSI, CVAD-associated-thrombosis, CVAD failure, incidental asymptomatic CVAD-associated-thrombosis, other adverse events, health-related quality of life, healthcare costs and mortality. To achieve 90% power (alpha=0.05) for the primary outcome, data from 720 recruitments are required. A mixed-methods approach will be employed to explore implementation contexts from the perspective of clinicians and healthcare purchasers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been provided by Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (HREC/22/QCHQ/81744) and the University of Queensland HREC (2022/HE000196) with subsequent governance approval at all sites. Informed consent is required from the substitute decision-maker or legal guardian prior to participation. In addition, consent may also be obtained from mature minors, depending on the legislative requirements of the study site. The primary trial and substudies will be written by the investigators and published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will also be disseminated through local health and clinical trial networks by investigators and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000499785.

Protect peripheral intravenous catheters: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a novel antimicrobial dressing for peripheral intravenous catheters (ProP trial).

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used vascular access device in hospitalised patients. Yet PIVCs may be complicated by local or systemic infections leading to increased healthcare costs. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings may help reduce PIVC-related infectious complications but have not yet been evaluated. We hypothesise an impregnated CHG transparent dressing, in comparison to standard polyurethane dressing, will be safe, effective and cost-effective in protecting against PIVC-related infectious complications and phlebitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ProP trial is a multicentre, superiority, randomised clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot, conducted across three centres in Australia and France. Patients (adults and children aged ≥6 years) requiring one PIVC for ≥48 hours are eligible. We will exclude patients with emergent PIVCs, known CHG allergy, skin injury at site of insertion or previous trial enrolment. Patients will be randomised to 3M Tegaderm Antimicrobial IV Advanced Securement dressing or standard care group. For the internal pilot, 300 patients will be enrolled to test protocol feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, missing data and satisfaction of participants and staff), primary endpoint for internal pilot, assessed by independent data safety monitoring committee. Clinical outcomes will not be reviewed. Following feasibility assessment, the remaining 2624 (1312 per trial arm) patients will be enrolled following the same methods. The primary endpoint is a composite of catheter-related infectious complications and phlebitis. Recruitment began on 3 May 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by Ouest I ethic committee in France and by The Queensland Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia. The findings will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05741866.

Securement to Prevent Noncuffed Central Venous Catheter Dislodgement in Pediatrics: The SECURED Superiority Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter dislodgement is a common complication for children with tunneled or peripherally inserted noncuffed central venous catheters (CVCs). A subcutaneous anchor securement system (SASS) may reduce this risk compared with traditional adhesive securement. Objective: To compare dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS with dislodgement of noncuffed CVCs secured with sutureless securement devices (SSDs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SECURED (Securing Central Venous Catheters to Prevent Dislodegment) trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial with an internal pilot and was conducted from August 5, 2020, to August 30, 2022, at 2 Australian quaternary pediatric hospitals. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Patients aged 0 to 18 years requiring a noncuffed CVC (≥3F catheter) were eligible for inclusion. Follow-up duration was 8 weeks or until device removal. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive an SASS or SSD, stratified by hospital and catheter type. Only 1 catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was dislodgement (partial or total), defined as movement of the catheter tip by greater than 1 cm (change in external catheter length) at any point during catheter dwell. Dislodgement, reported as a risk ratio (RR), was estimated using a generalized linear model with binomial family and log link. Secondary outcomes were reported as incidence rate ratios and were analyzed using Poission regression. Outcomes reported as mean differences (MDs) were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Of 310 randomized patients, 175 patients (56.5%) were male and median (IQR) patient age was 48 (16-120) months. A total of 307 patients had a catheter device inserted, of which 153 (49.8%) were SASS and 154 (50.2%) were SSD, and were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Device dislodgement was lower with SASS (8 dislodgements in 153 patients [5.2%]) compared with SSD (35 dislodgements in 154 patients [22.7%]) (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48; P < .001). The per-protocol analysis was consistent with the ITT analysis. Partial dislodgement accounted for most dislodgement events, including 6 partial dislodgements in the SASS group (3.9%) and 30 partial dislodgements in the SSD group (19.5%) (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.42). This contributed to fewer complications during dwell in the SASS group (37 reported complications [24.2%]) vs the SSD group (60 reported complications [39.0%]) (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.87). Staff reported greater difficulty removing devices anchored with SASS vs SSD (mean [SD], 29.1 [31.3] vs 5.3 [17.0], respectively; MD, 23.8; 95% CI, 16.7-31.0). However, use of SASS resulted in reduced per-participant health care costs of A$36.60 (95% credible interval, 4.25-68.95; US $24.36; 95% credible interval, 2.83-45.89). Conclusions and Relevance: In the SECURED trial, noncuffed CVCs secured with SASS had fewer dislodgements compared with SSDs, with a lower cost per patient and an acceptable safety profile. Future efforts should be directed at SASS implementation at the health service level. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12620000783921.

Peripherally inserted central catheter design and material for reducing catheter failure and complications.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in health care. PICCs can fail due to infective and non-infective complications, which PICC materials and design may contribute to, leading to negative sequelae for patients and healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of PICC material and design in reducing catheter failure and complications. SEARCH METHODS: The University of Queensland and Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 May 2023. We aimed to identify other potentially eligible trials or ancillary publications by searching the reference lists of retrieved included trials, as well as relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessment reports. We contacted experts in the field to ascertain additional relevant information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PICC design and materials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were venous thromboembolism (VTE), PICC-associated bloodstream infection (BSI), occlusion, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were catheter failure, PICC-related BSI, catheter breakage, PICC dwell time, and safety endpoints. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 2913 participants (one multi-arm study). All studies except one had a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domain. Integrated valve technology compared to no valve technology for peripherally inserted central catheter design Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to VTE risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 2.63; I² = 0%; 3 studies; 437 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether integrated valve technology reduces PICC-associated BSI risk, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to occlusion risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38; I² = 0%; 5 studies; 900 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether use of integrated valve technology reduces all-cause mortality risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.64; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 473 participants). Integrated valve technology may make little or no difference to catheter failure risk when compared with PICCs with no valve (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 720 participants; low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether integrated-valve technology reduces PICC-related BSI risk (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.32; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 542 participants) or catheter breakage, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.06; I² = 20%; 4 studies; 799 participants). Anti-thrombogenic surface modification compared to no anti-thrombogenic surface modification for peripherally inserted central catheter design We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces risk of VTE (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.54; I² = 15%; 2 studies; 257 participants) or PICC-associated BSI, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces occlusion (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.04 to 11.22; I² = 70%; 2 studies; 257 participants) or all-cause mortality risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.26; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 111 participants). Use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter failure (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.54; I² = 46%; 2 studies; 257 participants; low certainty evidence). No PICC-related BSIs were reported in one study (111 participants). As such, we are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces PICC-related BSI risk (RR not estimable; I² = not applicable; very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether use of anti-thrombogenic surface modified catheters reduces the risk of catheter breakage, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 257 participants). Antimicrobial impregnation compared to non-antimicrobial impregnation for peripherally inserted central catheter design We are uncertain whether use of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters reduces VTE risk (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.88; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 167 participants) or PICC-associated BSI risk, as the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.53; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 167 participants). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters probably make little or no difference to occlusion risk (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 1025 participants; moderate certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.75; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 1082 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter failure (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 221 participants; low certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters probably make little or no difference to PICC-related BSI risk (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.55; I² = not applicable; 2 studies (no events in 1 study); 1082 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Antimicrobial-impregnated catheters may make little or no difference to risk of catheter breakage (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.83; I² = not applicable; 1 study; 804 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality RCT evidence available to inform clinician decision-making for PICC materials and design. Limitations of the current evidence include small sample sizes, infrequent events, and risk of bias. There may be little to no difference in the risk of VTE, PICC-associated BSI, occlusion, or mortality across PICC materials and designs. Further rigorous RCTs are needed to reduce uncertainty.

Novel Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Securement for Children and Catheter Failure Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) facilitate essential treatment. Failure of these essential devices is frequent and new securement strategies may reduce failure and improve patient outcomes. Objective: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of novel PIVC securement technologies for children to reduce catheter failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-arm, parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 regional Australian hospitals from February 5, 2020, to January 14, 2022. Children aged 6 months to 8 years who were anticipated to require admission with a PIVC for at least 24 hours of in hospital treatment were eligible. Data were analyzed from May 25, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard care, bordered polyurethane (Tegaderm [3M]), integrated securement dressing (SorbaView SHIELD [Medline]), and integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (Secureport IV). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PIVC failure, defined as premature cessation of PIVC function for any reason prior to completion of planned treatment. Secondary outcomes were PIVC complications (any time dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, partial dislodgement, extravasation, device leaking, phlebitis, pain), PIVC longevity, intervention acceptability (clinicians, participants, caregivers; 0-10 scale), and pain on removal (participants and caregivers; 0-10 scale relevant to age), adverse events, and health care costs. Results: A total of 383 patients (51% female; median age 36 [25th-75th percentiles, 22-72] months) were randomized 134 to standard care, 118 to integrated securement dressing, and 131 to integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive. PIVC failure was lowest in integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (15 [12%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) compared with integrated securement dressing (24 [21%]; aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.28) and standard care (43 [34%]). Direct costs were significantly lower for integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (median, Australian dollars [A$], 312 [A$1 is equal to $0.65 US dollars]; IQR, A$302-A$380) and integrated securement dressing (median, A$303; IQR, A$294-A$465) compared with standard care (median, A$341; IQR, A$297-A$592; P ≤ .002) when considering the economic burden related to failure of devices. PIVC longevity and intervention acceptability were similar across all groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, PIVCs secured with integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive, in comparison with standard care, bordered polyurethane dressings, were associated with significantly reduced PIVC failure, for children admitted to hospital via the emergency department. Further research should focus on implementation in inpatient units where prolonged dwell and reliable intravenous access is most needed. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12619001026112.

Central Venous Access Device-Associated Skin Complications in Adults with Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and type of central venous access device-associated skin complications for adult cancer patients, describe central venous access device management practices, and identify clinical and demographic characteristics associated with risk of central venous access device-associated skin complications. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 369 patients (626 central venous access devices; 7,682 catheter days) was undertaken between March 2017 and March 2018 across two cancer care in-patient units in a large teaching hospital. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent (n = 168) of participants had a central venous access device-associated skin complication. In the final multivariable analysis, significant (P < .05) risk factors for skin complications were cutaneous graft versus host disease (2.1 times greater risk) and female sex (1.4 times greater risk), whereas totally implanted vascular access device reduced risk for skin complications by two-thirds (incidence risk ratio 0.37). CONCLUSION: Central venous access device-associated skin complications are a significant, potentially avoidable injury, requiring cancer nurses to be aware of high-risk groups and use evidence-based preventative and treatment strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study has confirmed how common these potentially preventable injuries are. Therefore, the prevalence of these complications could be reduced by focusing on improvements in skin assessment, reductions in central venous access device dressing variation and improving clinician knowledge of this injury.

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.

Problem-solving processes for central venous catheter occlusion within pediatric cancer care: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Central venous access devices play a crucial role in healthcare settings. However, there is concern regarding the high incidence of blockages occurring before the completion of treatments and existing guidelines for occlusion management are not consistently followed. To explore the decision-making and problem-solving process of occlusion management and identify enablers and barriers to implementing evidence for occlusion management in pediatric cancer care. METHODS: A qualitative design with individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected by purposeful sampling from a tertiary-referral pediatric facility, and semi-structured interviews were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 13 clinicians and 5 parents were interviewed. The thematic analysis revealed four main decision-making/problem-solving themes: 1) clinical reasoning and judgement for central venous access devices occlusion, 2) capability in central venous access devices occlusion management, 3) colleague collaboration in the escalation process and 4) lack of adequate support to manage the occlusion. This study identified positive and negative influences on the problem-solving process, including clinicians' psychological capabilities, social and physical resources, and beliefs about consequences. CONCLUSION: This study found that clinicians in pediatric cancer care were able to manage central venous access device occlusions using clinical reasoning and judgment skills, which may conflict with evidence-based practices. The study confirmed the importance of a team approach and prior experience in managing central venous access devices in pediatric oncology settings and identified potential conflicts between clinician decisions based on the patient's current and anticipated conditions and implementation of evidence-based practice. Improving documentation and providing visual aids could benefit clinicians' problem-solving processes.

Midline Compared With Peripheral Intravenous Catheters for Therapy of 4 Days or Longer in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during treatment causing therapy interruption, pain, recatheterization, and additional health care costs. Midline catheters (MCs) may improve functional dwell time and reduce failure compared with traditional PIVCs. Objective: To compare device failure of MCs with PIVCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial with an embedded internal pilot study conducted from July 2020 to May 2022. The study took place in a quaternary pediatric hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 1 to 18 years requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a PIVC or MC, stratified by age (≤5 years, >5 years). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause device failure, defined as premature cessation of device function. Secondary outcomes included number of insertion attempts, insertion failure, pain (on insertion), procedural time, patient/parent satisfaction (with insertion), device dwell time, device complications during dwell time, additional vascular access devices required to complete treatment, clinician satisfaction (at removal), and health care costs. Results: Of the 128 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 127 patients (median [IQR] age, 7 [2-13] years; 71 male [56%]) had a device inserted, with 65 (51.2%) in the PIVC group and 62 (48.8%) in the MC group. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Device failure was lower in patients in the MC group (10 [16.1%]) compared with those in the PIVC group (30 [46.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P <.001). MCs were associated with fewer insertion attempts (mean difference [MD], -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0; P = .04), increased dwell time (MD, 66.9 hours; 95% CI, 36.2-97.5 hours; P <.001), and fewer patients required additional vascular access devices to complete treatment in the MC group (4 [6.5%]) and PIVC group (19 [29.2%]; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P = .002). Compared with PIVCs, use of MCs was associated with greater patient (9.0 vs 7.1 of 10; P = .002) and parent (9.1 vs 8.2 of 10; P = .02) satisfaction and lower health care costs (AUS -$151.67 [US -$101.13] per person; 95% credible interval, AUS -$171.45 to -$131.90 [US -$114.20 to -$87.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that MC insertion for patients requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer should be prioritized to reduce the resource intensive, expensive, and burdensome sequelae of device failure. Trial Registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12620000724976.

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.

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.

Comparing the use of midline catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters for patients requiring peripherally compatible therapies: A pilot randomised controlled trial (the compact trial).

BACKGROUND: Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs). METHODS: A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice.

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.

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.

Review article: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in adult patients with difficult intravenous access: A systematic review of assessment instruments, clinical practice guidelines and escalation pathways.

The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present study aimed to critically appraise the quality of (i) assessment instruments and (ii) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or escalation pathways for identifying and managing patients with DIVA. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and EBSCO CINAHL databases were searched on 22 March 2021. Studies describing a DIVA assessment measure, CPG or escalation pathway for PIVC insertion in adults (≥18 years of age) were included. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form including study design, type of resource and reported clinical outcomes. Quality of DIVA assessment instruments were reviewed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Methodological quality of CPGs and escalation pathways was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREE-II) instrument. Overall, 24 DIVA resources comprising 16 DIVA assessment instruments and nine CPGs or escalation pathways (including one combined assessment instrument and escalation pathway) were identified. Instruments commonly focused on vein visibility and palpability as indicators of DIVA. CPGs and escalation pathways unanimously recommended use of vessel visualisation technology for patients with or suspected of DIVA. Methodological quality of the resources was mixed. Consensus and standardisation of resources to identify DIVA and recommendations for managing patients with DIVA is limited. Adopting consistent, evidence-based CPGs, escalation pathways or DIVA assessment instruments may significantly improve clinical outcomes.