Cargando…

Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”

BACKGROUND: Over 300 million peripheral intravenous catheters (PIV) are used yearly in the United States resulting in up to 146,000 cases of bloodstream infection. Despite their importance, relatively little effort has been invested in understanding their use and minimizing their risk. METHODS: A se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rupp, Mark E, Tandon, Hannah, Danielson, Peter, Cavalieri, R Jennifer, Sayles, Harlan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631228/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1689
_version_ 1783269401403850752
author Rupp, Mark E
Tandon, Hannah
Danielson, Peter
Cavalieri, R Jennifer
Sayles, Harlan
author_facet Rupp, Mark E
Tandon, Hannah
Danielson, Peter
Cavalieri, R Jennifer
Sayles, Harlan
author_sort Rupp, Mark E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Over 300 million peripheral intravenous catheters (PIV) are used yearly in the United States resulting in up to 146,000 cases of bloodstream infection. Despite their importance, relatively little effort has been invested in understanding their use and minimizing their risk. METHODS: A series of point-prevalence surveys were conducted over a 10 week period on all inpatient units at the Nebraska Medical Center, a 689-bed academic medical center, to ascertain patterns of intravascular catheter use, securement techniques, dressing integrity, and evidence of phlebitis. RESULTS: All inpatient units were surveyed at least three times by specially-trained observers resulting in assessments of 1,217 patients: 87 (7%) had no IV access, 667 (55%) had PIV only, 395 (32%) had central venous catheters (CVC) only, and 68 (6%) had both PIV and CVC. Not surprisingly, patients in the ICU were more likely to have a CVC than patients cared for on the ward (P < 0.001). PIV were located in the following anatomic sites: hand (27.1%), wrist (16.5%), forearm (26%), antecubital (25.1%), upper arm (3.9%), foot (0.5%) and other (0.9%). 99% of PIVs were covered with a transparent dressing. Only 1% of PIVs were dressed with gauze and tape and 6.5% were further covered with occlusive wraps. In addition, some PIVs were secured with tape (58.5%) or a device (9.2%). Secondary anchors, tape, or foam pads, were used to secure the IV tubing in 60.2% of patients. PIV dressing condition was assessed and 46.8% had significant edge lift and 21.5% had blood or fluid under the dressing. 24% of the PIV dressings had an application date noted. Patients in the ICU were more likely to have a PIV dressing application date noted on the dressing than ward patients (31% vs 23%, respectively, P = 0.047). Five percent of PIVs exhibited signs of phlebitis. CONCLUSION: PIVs and other vascular access devices are nearly universal in hospitalized patients. There is great variability in the anatomic location of PIVs and in the manner they are dressed and secured – resulting in an opportunity for standardization and risk reduction. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5631228
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56312282017-11-07 Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect” Rupp, Mark E Tandon, Hannah Danielson, Peter Cavalieri, R Jennifer Sayles, Harlan Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Over 300 million peripheral intravenous catheters (PIV) are used yearly in the United States resulting in up to 146,000 cases of bloodstream infection. Despite their importance, relatively little effort has been invested in understanding their use and minimizing their risk. METHODS: A series of point-prevalence surveys were conducted over a 10 week period on all inpatient units at the Nebraska Medical Center, a 689-bed academic medical center, to ascertain patterns of intravascular catheter use, securement techniques, dressing integrity, and evidence of phlebitis. RESULTS: All inpatient units were surveyed at least three times by specially-trained observers resulting in assessments of 1,217 patients: 87 (7%) had no IV access, 667 (55%) had PIV only, 395 (32%) had central venous catheters (CVC) only, and 68 (6%) had both PIV and CVC. Not surprisingly, patients in the ICU were more likely to have a CVC than patients cared for on the ward (P < 0.001). PIV were located in the following anatomic sites: hand (27.1%), wrist (16.5%), forearm (26%), antecubital (25.1%), upper arm (3.9%), foot (0.5%) and other (0.9%). 99% of PIVs were covered with a transparent dressing. Only 1% of PIVs were dressed with gauze and tape and 6.5% were further covered with occlusive wraps. In addition, some PIVs were secured with tape (58.5%) or a device (9.2%). Secondary anchors, tape, or foam pads, were used to secure the IV tubing in 60.2% of patients. PIV dressing condition was assessed and 46.8% had significant edge lift and 21.5% had blood or fluid under the dressing. 24% of the PIV dressings had an application date noted. Patients in the ICU were more likely to have a PIV dressing application date noted on the dressing than ward patients (31% vs 23%, respectively, P = 0.047). Five percent of PIVs exhibited signs of phlebitis. CONCLUSION: PIVs and other vascular access devices are nearly universal in hospitalized patients. There is great variability in the anatomic location of PIVs and in the manner they are dressed and secured – resulting in an opportunity for standardization and risk reduction. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5631228/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1689 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Rupp, Mark E
Tandon, Hannah
Danielson, Peter
Cavalieri, R Jennifer
Sayles, Harlan
Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title_full Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title_fullStr Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title_full_unstemmed Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title_short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters – “They Don’t Get No Respect”
title_sort peripheral intravenous catheters – “they don’t get no respect”
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631228/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1689
work_keys_str_mv AT ruppmarke peripheralintravenouscatheterstheydontgetnorespect
AT tandonhannah peripheralintravenouscatheterstheydontgetnorespect
AT danielsonpeter peripheralintravenouscatheterstheydontgetnorespect
AT cavalierirjennifer peripheralintravenouscatheterstheydontgetnorespect
AT saylesharlan peripheralintravenouscatheterstheydontgetnorespect