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.

Risk factors for arterial catheter failure and complications during critical care hospitalisation: a secondary analysis of a multisite, randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: Arterial catheters (ACs) are critical for haemodynamic monitoring and blood sampling but are prone to complications. We investigated the incidence and risk factors of AC failure. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (ACTRN 12610000505000). Analysis included a subset of adult intensive care unit patients with an AC. The primary outcome was all-cause device failure. Secondary outcomes were catheter associated bloodstream infection (CABSI), suspected CABSI, occlusion, thrombosis, accidental removal, pain, and line fracture. Risk factors associated with AC failure were investigated using Cox proportional hazards and competing-risk models. RESULTS: Of 664 patients, 173 (26%) experienced AC failure (incidence rate [IR] 37/1000 catheter days). Suspected CABSI was the most common failure type (11%; IR 15.3/1000 catheter days), followed by occlusion (8%; IR 11.9/1,000 catheter days), and accidental removal (4%; IR 5.5/1000 catheter days). CABSI occurred in 16 (2%) patients. All-cause failure and occlusion were reduced with ultrasound-assisted insertion (failure: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.25, 0.76; occlusion: sub-HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03, 0.43). Increased age was associated with less AC failure (60-74 years HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; 75 + years HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20, 0.64; referent 15-59 years). Females experienced more occlusion (adjusted sub-HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.49, 4.29), while patients with diabetes had less (SHR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04, 0.63). Suspected CABSI was associated with an abnormal insertion site appearance (SHR 2.71, 95% CI 1.48, 4.99). CONCLUSIONS: AC failure is common with ultrasound-guided insertion associated with lower failure rates. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12610000505000); date registered: 18 June 2010.

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.

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.

Health-related quality of life and experience measures, to assess patients' experiences of peripheral intravenous catheters: a secondary data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are essential for successful administration of intravenous treatments. However, insertion failure and PIVC complications are common and negatively impact patients' health-outcomes and experiences. We aimed to assess whether generic (not condition-specific) quality of life and experience measures were suitable for assessing outcomes and experiences of patients with PIVCs. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of data collected on three existing instruments within a large randomised controlled trial, conducted at two adult tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Instruments included the EuroQol Five Dimension - Five Level (EQ5D-5L), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Treatment Satisfaction - General measure (FACIT-TS-G, eight items), and the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS, 12 items). Responses were compared against two clinical PIVC outcomes of interest: all-cause failure and multiple insertion attempts. Classic descriptives were reported for ceiling and floor effects. Regression analyses examined validity (discrimination). Standardised response mean and effect size (ES) assessed responsiveness (EQ5D-5L, only). RESULTS: In total, 685 participants completed the EQ5D-5L at insertion and 526 at removal. The FACIT-TS-G was completed by 264 and the AHPEQS by 262 participants. Two FACIT-TS-G items and one AHPEQS item demonstrated ceiling effect. Instruments overall demonstrated poor discrimination, however, all-cause PIVC failure was significantly associated with several individual items in the instruments (e.g., AHPEQS, 'unexpected physical and emotional harm'). EQ5D-5L demonstrated trivial (ES < 0.20) responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Initial investigation of an existing health-related quality of life measure (EQ5D-5L) and two patient-reported experience measures (FACIT-TS-G; AHPEQS) suggest they are inadequate (as a summary measure) to assess outcomes and experiences for patients with PIVCs. Reliable instruments are urgently needed to inform quality improvement and benchmark standards of care.

Peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters are the most frequently used invasive device in nursing practice, yet are commonly associated with complications. We performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheter infection and all-cause failure. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for observational studies and randomised controlled trials that reported peripheral intravenous catheter related infections or failure. The review was limited to English language and articles published from the year 2000. Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Meta-analysis of observation studies in epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane process for randomised controlled trials were used to guide the review. Prospero registration number: CRD42022349956. FINDINGS: Our search retrieved 34,725 studies. Of these, 41 observational studies and 28 randomised controlled trials (478,586 peripheral intravenous catheters) met inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 0.028 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.009-0.081; 38 studies), or 4.40 catheter-associated bloodstream infections per 100,000 catheter-days (20 studies, 95 % CI: 3.47-5.58). Local infection was reported in 0.150 % of peripheral intravenous catheters (95 % CI: 0.047-0.479, 30 studies) with an incidence rate of 65.1 per 100,000 catheter-days (16 studies; 95 % CI: 49.2-86.2). All cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure before treatment completion occurred in 36.4 % of catheters (95 % CI: 31.7-41.3, 53 studies) with an overall incidence rate of 4.42 per 100 catheter days (78,891 catheter days; 19 studies; 95 % CI: 4.27-4.57). INTERPRETATION: Peripheral intravenous catheter failure is a significant worldwide problem, affecting one in three catheters. Per peripheral intravenous catheter, infection occurrence was low, however, with over two billion catheters used globally each year, the absolute number of infections and associated burden remains high. Substantial and systemwide efforts are needed to address peripheral intravenous catheter infection and failure and the sequelae of treatment disruption, increased health costs and poor patient outcomes.

Controlling peripheral intravenous catheter failure by needleless connector design: A pilot randomised controlled trial.

AIM: To test the feasibility of a study protocol that compared the efficacy of neutral- and negative-pressure needleless connectors (NCs). DESIGN: A single-centre, parallel-group, pilot randomised control trial. METHODS: Our study compared neutral-(intervention) and negative-pressure (control) NCs among adult patients in an Australian hospital. The primary feasibility outcome was measured against predetermined criteria (e.g. eligibility, attrition). The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, analysed as time-to-event data. RESULTS: In total, 201 (100 control; 101 intervention) participants were enrolled between March 2020 and September 2020. All feasibility criteria were met except eligibility, which was lower (78%) than the 90% criterion. All-cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure was significantly higher in the intervention group (39%) compared to control (19%). CONCLUSION: With minor modifications to participant screening for eligibility, this randomised control trial is feasible for a large multicentre randomised control trial. The neutral NC was associated with an increased risk of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: There are several NC designs available, often identified by their mechanism of pressure (positive, negative and neutral). However, NCs can contribute to peripheral intravenous catheter failure. This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare neutral and negative NC designs. Negative pressure NCs had lower PIVC failure compared to neutral NCs, however the results might not be generalisable to other brands or treatment settings. Further high-quality research is needed to explore NC design. REPORTING METHOD: Study methods and results reported in adherence to the CONSORT Statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Association between parenteral nutrition-containing intravenous lipid emulsion and bloodstream infections in patients with single-lumen central venous access: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing primary bloodstream infections (BSIs) related to central venous access devices (CVADs) from those that occur through other mechanisms, such as a damaged mucosal barrier, is difficult. METHODS: Secondary analysis was conducted on data from patients with CVADs that were collected for a large, randomized trial. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received parenteral nutrition (PN)-containing intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) and those who did not have PN-containing ILE. This study investigated the influence of PN-containing ILE (ILE PN) on primary BSIs in patients with a CVAD. RESULTS: Of the 807 patients, 180 (22%) received ILE PN. Most (627/807; 73%) were recruited from the hematology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit, followed by surgical (90/807; 11%), trauma and burns (61/807; 8%), medical (44/807; 5%), and oncology (23/807; 3%). When primary BSI was differentiated as a central line-associated BSI (CLABSI) or mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed BSI (MBI-LCBI), the incidence of CLABSI was similar in the ILE PN and non-ILE PN groups (15/180 [8%] vs 57/627 [9%]; P = 0.88) and the incidence of MBI-LCBI was significantly different between groups (31/180 [17%] ILE PN vs 41/627 [7%] non-ILE PN; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that twice as many primary BSIs in ILE PN patients are due to MBIs than CVADs. It is important to consider the MBI-LCBI classification, as some CLABSI prevention efforts aimed at CVADs for the ILE PN population may be better directed to gastrointestinal tract protection interventions.

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.

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.

Integrated versus non-integrated peripheral intravenous catheters: a cross-sectional survey of nurse experiences.

BACKGROUND: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. AIMS: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). FINDINGS: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation.

Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One-third of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) fail from inflammatory or infectious complications, causing substantial treatment interruption and replacement procedures. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare complications between integrated PIVCs (inbuilt extension sets, wings, and flattened bases) and traditional nonintegrated PIVCs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A centrally randomized, controlled, superiority trial (with allocation concealment until study entry) was conducted in three Australian hospitals. Medical-surgical patients (one PIVC each) requiring intravenous therapy for >24 h were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was device failure (composite: occlusion, infiltration, phlebitis, dislodgement, local, or bloodstream infection). Infection endpoints were assessor-masked. The secondary outcomes were: failure type, first-time insertion success, tip colonization, insertion pain, dwell time, mortality, costs, health-related quality of life, clinician, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 1759 patients randomized (integrated PIVC, n = 881; nonintegrated PIVC, n = 878), 1710 (97%) received a PIVC and were in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (2269 PIVC-days integrated; 2073 PIVC-days nonintegrated). Device failure incidence was 35% (145 per 1000 device-days) nonintegrated, and 33% (124 per 1000 device-days) integrated PIVCs. INTERVENTION: Integrated PIVCs had a significantly lower failure risk (adjusted [sex, infection, setting, site, gauge] hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.69-0.96], p = .015). The per-protocol analysis was consistent (adjusted HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95], p = .010). Integrated PIVCs had significantly longer dwell (top quartile ≥ 95 vs. ≥84 h). Mean per-patient costs were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: PIVC failure is common and complex. Significant risk factors include sex, infection at baseline, care setting, insertion site, catheter gauge, and catheter type. Integrated PIVCs can significantly reduce the burden of PIVC failure on patients and the health system.

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.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of securement bundles to reduce peripheral intravenous catheter failure.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are ubiquitous in acute care settings however failure rates are unacceptably high, with around half failing before prescribed treatment is complete. The most effective dressing and securement option to prolong PIVC longevity is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine feasibility of conducting a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating evidence-based securement bundles (medical adhesive tapes and supplementary securement products) to reduce PIVC failure. METHODS: In this pilot non-masked 3-group RCT, adults requiring a PIVC for >24 hrs were randomized to Standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing plus non-sterile tape over extension tubing), Securement Bundle 1 (two sterile tape strips over PIVC hub plus Standard care) or Securement Bundle 2 (Bundle 1 plus tubular bandage) with allocation concealed until study entry. EXCLUSIONS: laboratory-confirmed positive blood culture, current/high-risk of skin tear, or study product allergy. PRIMARY OUTCOME: feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, participant/staff satisfaction). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: PIVC failure, PIVC dwell time, adverse skin events, PIVC colonization and cost. RESULTS: Of 109 randomized participants, 104 were included in final analyses. Feasibility outcomes were met, except eligibility criterion (79%). Absolute PIVC failure was 38.2% (13/34) for Bundle 2, 25% (9/36) for Bundle 1 and 23.5% (8/34) for Standard care. Incidence rate ratio for PIVC failure/1000 catheter days, compared to Standard care, was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI 0.9-5.1) for Bundles 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large RCT testing securement bundles is feasible, with adjustment to screening processes. Innovative dressing and securement solutions are needed to reduce unacceptable PIVC failure rates. Trial registration ACTRN12619000026123.

Peripheral intravenous catheters in the care of oncology and haematology patients.

Aim: To determine peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) characteristics, complications and risk factors among patients in cancer units. Methods: A secondary analysis of a global, cross-sectional study (127 hospitals in 24 countries). Participants (≥18 years) admitted to cancer units were assessed once for PIVC characteristics and the presence of complications. Variables included patient demographics, device characteristics, treatment details, and device and/or site complications. PIVC characteristics were presented using qualitative descriptors; mixed-effects logistic regression models determined risk factors for PIVC complications. Results: In total, 1,807 participants (1,812 PIVCs) were included; 12% (n=215) of PIVCs presented with complications. Risk factors included: insertion by doctors; insertion in ED and ambulance/other locations; poor PIVC dressing integrity; dwell time ≥49 hours; and administration of colloids/blood products and antiemetics. Conclusions: At least one in ten PIVCs in cancer units present with complications; regular PIVC assessment and improved dressing integrity is likely to reduce risk and improve outcomes.

Evaluating methods for the use and decontamination of needleless connectors: A qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Needleless connectors (NCs) are essential devices designed to provide safe, needle-free connection between venous access devices, syringes and infusions. There is a variety of designs, and associated decontamination products and practices; the resulting confusion can cause detrimental patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore nurses' attitudes, techniques, and practices around the use and decontamination of NCs in clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative inquiry was conducted with seven focus groups of 4-6 participants each in the cancer and surgical units of a large tertiary hospital in Australia between January and March 2019. Participants comprised nurses who had taken part in a recent clinical trial of NC decontamination. Focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed and synthesised using content analysis. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted (total, N = 30 participants), lasting 16-20 min. Six major themes were identified surrounding needleless connector use and decontamination: 'safety and utility'; 'terminology and technological understanding'; 'clinical practice determinants'; 'decontamination procedures and influencers'; 'education and culture'; and 'research and innovation'. CONCLUSION: The participants articulated positive attitudes towards needleless connector use for needle-stick and infection prevention, however rationales for care and maintenance practices demonstrated limited understanding of guidelines (e.g., disinfection time) and specific NC function (e.g., positive, negative pressure). The findings indicated the need for targeted, standardised needleless connector education, to enhance staff confidence, improve consistency of care and ensure patient safety.

Securing jugular central venous access devices with dressings fixed to a liquid adhesive in an intensive care unit population: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access devices (CVADs) can have high rates of failure due to dressing-related complications. CVADs placed in the internal jugular vein are at particular risk of dressing failure-related complications, including catheter-associated bloodstream infection and medical adhesive-related skin injury. Application of Mastisol liquid adhesive (MLA) may reduce CVAD dressing failure and associated complications, by reducing the frequency of dressing changes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether, in an intensive care unit (ICU) population, standard dressing care with or without the addition of MLA, improves internal jugular CVAD dressing adherence. METHODS: This two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial will be conducted in three Australian ICUs. A total of 160 patients (80 per group) will be enrolled in accordance with study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomised to receive either (1) 'standard' (in accordance with local hospital policy) CVAD dressings (control) or (2) 'standard' dressings in addition to MLA (intervention). Patients will be followed from the time of CVAD insertion to 48 h after CVAD removal. The primary outcome is 'dressing failure' defined as requirement for initial CVAD dressing to be replaced prior to seven days (routine replacement). DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MLA in the adult intensive care unit population and will also provide crucial data for patient-important outcomes such as infection and skin injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001012864 . Registered on 2 August 2021.

Awareness of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Among Nurses, Physicians, and Students.

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used to meet patients' short-term health care needs. However, many PIVCs are not promptly removed at the completion of treatment, placing patients at risk of avoidable harm from serious complications including local and systemic infection. This study aims to report the proportion and accuracy of health care staff/students awareness of the presence of their patient's PIVC. METHODS: We asked staff/students to recall the presence or absence of a PIVC in a patient under their care, as well as details of the date of insertion and PIVC location. We recorded concordance of responses with direct observations. To achieve this, face-to-face interviews were conducted with clinical staff/students at 2 adult hospitals. RESULTS: Overall, 90% (n = 216) of staff responses (94% of nurses, 100% of nursing students, 76% of medical staff) correctly identified the presence/absence of a PIVC. Clinicians correctly identified the PIVC location 55% (n = 71) of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Health care services must recognize the implications of this lack of awareness and implement and evaluate tailored quality improvement efforts to address this.

Intravenous antimicrobial administration through peripheral venous catheters - establishing risk profiles from an analysis of 5252 devices.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are used to administer antimicrobials, but many fail prior to completion of therapy. While some antimicrobials are known to increase the PVC failure rate, risk profiles for many are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize data from prospective PVC studies conducted between 2013 and 2019 to determine associations between common antimicrobials and PVC failure. METHODS: A secondary analysis was undertaken of seven randomized controlled trials and two prospective cohort studies from three quaternary hospitals (two adult and one paediatric) in Australia between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PVC failure due to vessel injury (occlusion, infiltration or extravasation) or irritation (pain or phlebitis). Associations between antimicrobial use and PVC failure were explored using multi-variable Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 5252 PVCs (4478 patients) were analysed; vessel injury and irritations occurred in 19% and 11% of all PVCs, respectively. Vessel injury was significantly associated with cefepime hydrochloride [hazard ratio (HR) 2.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-4.34], ceftazidime pentahydrate (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.11-3.31), flucloxacillin sodium (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.45-2.33), lincomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10-2.52) and vancomycin hydrochloride (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.25-2.40). Irritation was significantly associated with flucloxacillin sodium (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96-3.40). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several antimicrobials associated with increased PVC failure, including some that were already known to be associated and some that had not been identified previously. Research is needed urgently to determine superior modes of delivery (e.g. dilution, infusion time, device type) that may prevent PVC failure.

Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs versus unmedicated dressings for prevention of central venous catheter-associated infection in the intensive care unit: A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess protocol safety and feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are prone to infectious complications, affecting morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs at the catheter insertion site may prevent local and bloodstream infection; however, efficacy has not been established in a critical care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to pilot test polyhexamethylene biguanide-impregnated discs compared to standard unmedicated dressings for central venous catheter infection prevention in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre pilot randomised controlled trial. Adults admitted to intensive care requiring a central venous catheter for >72 h were eligible. Patients with a current bloodstream infection, concurrent central venous catheter, chlorhexidine or polyhexamethylene biguanide allergy, or sensitive skin were excluded. Patients were randomised to receive standard central venous catheter dressings with/without polyhexamethylene biguanide discs. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility, defined by patient eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, missing data, and staff satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included: central line-associated infection; primary bloodstream infection; local infection; skin complications; device/dressing dwell time; serious adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 309 patients screened, 80 participants were recruited with 98% (n = 78) receiving an internal jugular catheter which dwelled for a median of 5 days (interquartile range = 4.0, 6.0). Feasibility criteria were predominantly met (recruitment 88%; retention 100%; protocol fidelity 91%); however, eligibility criteria were not met (32%; most commonly owing to short predicted catheter dwell). Staff acceptability criteria were met, with 83% of staff scoring dressing application and removal ≥7 on a numerical rating scale. There were no central line-associated bloodstream infections and no local infections. Insertion site itch occurred in 4% (control [n = 0], intervention [n = 3]) of participants, while 32% (24/76) reported pain, and 46% (35/76) tenderness. CONCLUSIONS: Polyhexamethylene biguanide discs appear safe for central venous catheter infection prevention. Feasibility of a large efficacy trial was established with some modifications to screening processes. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to test the infection prevention hypotheses.