Dataset Information

The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making. DESIGN AND SETTING:I-DECIDED is an eight-step tool derived from international vascular access guidelines into a structured mnemonic for device assessment and decision-making. The clinimetric evaluation process was conducted in three distinct phases. METHODS:Initial face validity was confirmed with a vascular access working group. Next, content validity testing was conducted via online survey with vascular access experts and clinicians from Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada. Finally, inter-rater reliability was conducted between 34 pairs of assessors for a total of 68 peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) assessments. Assessments were timed to ensure feasibility, and the second rater was blinded to the first's findings. Content validity index (CVI), mean item-level CVI (I-CVI), internal consistency, mean proportion of agreement, observed and expected inter-rater agreements, and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappas (PABAK) were calculated. Ethics approvals were obtained from university and hospital ethics committees. RESULTS:The I-DECIDED tool demonstrated strong content validity among international vascular access experts (n=7; mean I-CVI=0.91; mean proportion of agreement=0.91) and clinicians (n=11; mean I-CVI=0.93; mean proportion of agreement=0.94), and high inter-rater reliability in seven adult medical-surgical wards of three Australian hospitals. Overall, inter-rater reliability was 87.13%, with PABAK for each principle ranging from 0.5882 ('patient education') to 1.0000 ('document the decision'). Time to complete assessments averaged 2?min, and nurse-reported acceptability was high. CONCLUSION:This is the first comprehensive, evidence-based, valid and reliable PIVC assessment and decision tool. We recommend studies to evaluate the outcome of implementing this tool in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:12617000067370.

SUBMITTER: Ray-Barruel G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044901 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.

Ray-Barruel Gillian G Cooke Marie M Chopra Vineet V Mitchell Marion M Rickard Claire M CM

BMJ open 20200121 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making.<h4>Design and setting</h4>I-DECIDED is an eight-step tool derived from international vascular access guidelines into a structured mnemonic for device assessment and decision-making. The clinimetric evaluation process was conducted in three distinct phases.<h4>Methods</h4>Initial face validity was confirmed with a vascular access working group. Next, c ...[more]

PMID: 31969371

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMillions of acute care hospital patients need a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) each year. However, up to half of PIVCs remain in situ when not being used, and 30%-50% of intravenous (IV) catheters develop complications or stop working before treatment is finished, requiring the insertion of a new device. Improved assessment could prompt timely removal of redundant catheters and prevent IV complications. This study aims to validate an evidence-based PIVC assessment and decision-making tool called I-DECIDED and evaluate the effect of implementing this tool into acute hospital clinical practice.Methods and analysisThe protocol outlines a prospective, multicentre, mixed-methods study using an interrupted time-series (multiple measures preintervention and postintervention) implementation at three Australian hospitals between August 2017 and July 2018. The study will examine the effectiveness of the I-DECIDED assessment and decision-making tool in clinical practice on prompting timely PIVC removal and early detection of complications. Primary outcomes are prevalence of redundant PIVCs (defined as device in situ without a clear purpose), IV complications (occlusion, dislodgement, infiltration, extravasation and phlebitis) and substandard dressings (loose, lifting, moist or soiled); device utilisation ratios; and primary bloodstream infection rates. Secondary outcomes including staff barriers and enablers to PIVC assessment and removal, patient participation, documentation of PIVC assessment and decisions taken to continue or remove the PIVC will be recorded. Using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, we will undertake staff focus groups, bedside patient interviews and PIVC assessments and chart audits. Patients aged 18 years or more with a PIVC will be eligible for inclusion.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/17/QPCH/47), Griffith University (Ref No. 2017/152) and St Vincent's Health and Aged Care Human Research and Ethics Committee (Ref No. 17/28). Results will be published.Trial registration numberANZCTR: 12617000067370; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectivesRates of unused ('idle') peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are high but can vary per setting. Understanding factors that influence the decision-making of doctors, nurses and paramedics in the emergency setting regarding PIVC insertion, and what factors may modify their decision is essential to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary cannulations and improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aimed to understand factors associated with clinicians' decision-making on whether to insert or use a PIVC in the emergency care setting.DesignA qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.SettingGold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and local government ambulance service.ParticipantsParticipants recruited were ED clinicians (doctors, nurses) and paramedics who regularly insert PIVCs.ResultsFrom the 15 clinicians interviewed 4 key themes: knowledge and experience, complicated and multifactorial, convenience, anticipated patient clinical course, and several subthemes emerged relating to clinician decision-making across all disciplines. The first two themes focused on decision-making to gather data and evidence, such as knowledge and experience, and decisions being complicated and multifactorial. The remaining two themes related to the actions clinicians took such as convenience and anticipated patient clinical course.ConclusionThe decision to insert a PIVC is more complicated than clinicians, administrators and policy-makers may realise. When explored, clinician decisions were multifaceted with many factors influencing the decision to insert a PIVC. In actual practice, clinicians routinely insert PIVCs in most patients as a learnt reflex with little cognitive input. When considering PIVC insertion, more time needs to be devoted to the awareness of: (1) decision-making in the context of the clinician's own experience, (2) cognitive biases and (3) patient-centred factors. Such awareness will support an appropriate risk assessment which will benefit the patient, clinician and healthcare system.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in hospitals. However, PIVC complications are common, with failures leading to treatment delays, additional procedures, patient pain and discomfort, increased clinician workload and substantially increased healthcare costs. Recent evidence suggests integrated PIVC systems may be more effective than traditional non-integrated PIVC systems in reducing phlebitis, infiltration and costs and increasing functional dwell time. The study aim is to determine the efficacy, cost-utility and acceptability to patients and professionals of an integrated PIVC system compared with a non-integrated PIVC system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of integrated versus non-integrated PIVC systems to compare effectiveness on clinical and economic outcomes. Recruitment of 1560 patients over 2?years, with randomisation by a centralised service ensuring allocation concealment. Primary outcomes: catheter failure (composite endpoint) for reasons of: occlusion, infiltration/extravasation, phlebitis/thrombophlebitis, dislodgement, localised or catheter-associated bloodstream infections. SECONDARY OUTCOMES:first time insertion success, types of PIVC failure, device colonisation, insertion pain, functional dwell time, adverse events, mortality, cost-utility and consumer acceptability. One PIVC per patient will be included, with intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline group comparisons will be made for potentially clinically important confounders. The proportional hazards assumption will be checked, and Cox regression will test the effect of group, patient, device and clinical variables on failure. An as-treated analysis will assess the effect of protocol violations. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests will compare failure by group over time. Secondary endpoints will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/QRBW/527), Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2017/002) and the South Metropolitan Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2016-239). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12617000089336.

Project description:ObjectivePeripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) failure occurs frequently, but the underlying mechanisms of failure are poorly understood. We aim to identify ultrasonographic factors that predict impending PIVC failure prior to clinical exam.MethodsWe conducted a single site prospective observational investigation at an academic tertiary care center. Adult emergency department (ED) patients who underwent traditional PIVC placement in the ED and required admission with an anticipated hospital length of stay greater than 48 hours were included. Ongoing daily PIVC assessments included clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations. The primary objective was to identify ultrasonographic PIVC site findings associated with an increased risk of PIVC failure. The secondary outcome was to determine if ultrasonographic indicators of PIVC failure occurred earlier than clinical recognition of PIVC failure.ResultsIn July and August of 2020, 62 PIVCs were enrolled. PIVC failure occurred in 24 (38.71%) participants. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the presence of ultrasonographic subcutaneous edema [AOR 7.37 (1.91, 27.6) p = 0.0030] was associated with an increased likelihood of premature PIVC failure. Overall, 6 (9.67%) patients had subcutaneous edema present on clinical exam, while 35 (56.45%) had subcutaneous edema identified on ultrasound. Among patients with PIVC failure, average time to edema detectable on ultrasound was 46 hours and average time to clinical recognition of failure was 67 hours (P = < 0.0001).ConclusionsPresence of subcutaneous edema on ultrasound is a strong predictor of PIVC failure. Subclinical subcutaneous edema occurs early and often in the course of the PIVC lifecycle with a predictive impact on PIVC failure that is inadequately captured on clinical examination of the PIVC site. The early timing of this ultrasonographic finding provides the clinician with key information to better anticipate the patient's vascular access needs. Further research investigating interventions to enhance PIVC survival once sonographic subcutaneous edema is present is needed.

Dataset Information

The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.

Publications

The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets