Patient experiences with peripherally inserted venous catheters- A cross-sectional, multicentre study in Norway.

Only 34% of invited patients responded, and non-responders were significantly older, so experiences of older or less engaged patients may be missing. Not all eligible patients were invited; nurse anaesthetists omitted patients who were somnolent, terminally ill or very vulnerable, which may select for more stable patients. The study used a structured questionnaire, not interviews, so it may miss more detailed reasons behind experiences. Free-text comments were short and not analysed thoroughly, so themes are illustrative rather than a full qualitative finding. Complications were taken from medical records without objective incidence measures, so the strength of the complication-experience link cannot be fully checked. Hospitals differed in how many patients were still hospitalized, comorbidity, diagnosis and treatment, so hospital differences may reflect patient mix rather than care alone. PICCs and Midlines were analysed together, although the paper says patients are not familiar with the differences and the regression found no significant association by catheter type. Sample size was not calculated because the questionnaire had no total score; the study aimed for about 300 patients.

Do not read most would choose the catheter again as evidence the catheter is comfortable or complication-free. Only 34% of invited patients responded, non-responders were significantly older, every item indicated quality improvement potential, and complications were independently associated with experience ratings.