Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Care at Australian Emergency Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
Hui Grace Xu, Anna Doubrovsky, Claire M Rickard and 3 others
PMID 39930114WHAT IT FOUND
In Australian EDs, PIVC care showed low patient partnership, frequent antecubital fossa use and incomplete documentation: 2.9% discussed risks and benefits, 81.2% used the antecubital fossa, and only 3.3% had removal documented.
Key findings
01Only 2.9% of observed insertions included discussion of PIVC risks and benefits, and only 1.4% included self-care education.
02Most observed insertions were placed in the antecubital fossa (81.2%) or on the dominant arm (53.4%), and only 15.5% checked for site contraindications.
03Only 3.3% of chart-audited PIVCs had removal documented, and 41.8% were idle catheters.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was done in three metropolitan and regional Queensland EDs, so it may not reflect rural, remote or other hospital settings. Only clinicians who consented were observed, and observations happened during selected shifts, so practice may differ when unobserved or at other times. No statistical inference or group comparisons were done, so these are descriptive audit rates, not tested effects. Standard 9, reviewing ongoing PIVC need, could not be assessed because the electronic record did not contain that data. The study could not determine how many PIVCs were removed before discharge.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were declared for this study. Some authors report unrelated investigator-initiated grants and consultancy funding from companies including 3M, Cardinal Health, BBraun, ITL Biomedical, BD, Medline and Biolife. Queensland Health Metro South Health Research Support Scheme funded the study.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these rates as the true practice in all EDs or as proof that a specific intervention will improve outcomes. Clinicians self-selected and consented, observations occurred only during selected shifts, and the study made no group comparisons.