Understanding consumer preference for vascular access safety and quality measurement: an international survey.

ABSTRACT

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine patient perceptions regarding vascular access quality measurement. Methods A web-based, cross-sectional survey was performed using a convenience sample of healthcare consumers with vascular access experience, recruited from September 2019 to June 2020. Survey respondents were asked to rate the perceived importance of 50 vascular access data items, including patient demographics, clinical and device characteristics, and insertion, management and complication data. Data were ranked using a five-point Likert scale (1, least important; 5, most important), and are reported as median values. Respondents proposed additional items and explored broader perspectives using free-text responses, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results In all, 68 consumers completed the survey. Participants were primarily female (82%), aged 40-49 years (29%) and living in Australia or New Zealand (84%). All respondents indicated that measuring the quality of vascular access care was important. Of the 50 items, 37 (74%) were perceived as 'most important' (median score 5), with measures of quality (i.e. outcomes and complications) rated highly (e.g. thrombosis and primary blood stream infection). Participants proposed 16 additional items. 'Gender' received the lowest perceived importance score (median score 3). Two themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of broader perspectives (1) measurement of vascular access device complication severity and associated factors; and (2) patient experience. Conclusion Measuring vascular access quality and safety is important to consumers. Outcome and complication measures were rated 'most important', with respondents identifying a need for increased monitoring of their overall vascular access journey through the health system. What is known about the topic? The use of vascular access devices is common among hospitalised patients. Quality surveillance is not standardised, with no incorporation of patient preference. What does this paper add? We identify the data items consumers perceive as valuable to measure related to their vascular access journey; most importantly, consumers perceived the collecting of vascular access data as important. What are the implications for practitioners? Health services can use these data to develop platforms to monitor the quality and safety of vascular access care.