The Prevalence and Success Rate of Ultrasound Guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter (USGPIV) Placement By Vascular Access Team Nurses (VATNs) before and after an Educational Intervention: Table 1

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. 196A-196A
Author(s):  
Marsha A. Elkhunovich ◽  
Aisha Vaiyani ◽  
Joanna Barreras ◽  
Valerie Bock ◽  
Nurit Ziv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Educational Intervention ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

Development of an educational program using ultrasonography in vascular access for nurse practitioner students

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. S34-S42
Author(s):  
Marcel Kaganovskaya ◽  
Lorelle Wuerz
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Education ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Formal Education ◽  
Bachelor's Degree ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Handheld Ultrasound ◽  
Nurse Practitioner Students

HIGHLIGHTS Ultrasonography is an important tool for vascular access practice. Ultrasound should be used for vascular access assessment and insertion. Ultrasonography should be incorporated into formal nursing education curriculum and simulation training. Background: This study analyzed nurse practitioner students' knowledge of ultrasound-guided vascular access after the implementation of an educational and simulation course. Methods: Nurses' knowledge of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placement was analyzed using a ten-item questionnaire both before and after course. A sample of bachelor's degree-prepared nurses voluntarily participated in this study. Ultrasonography simulation was carried out with two handheld ultrasound devices and two ultrasound blocks. Results: The findings demonstrated that there is a statistically significant increased comprehension of ultrasoundguided vascular access after simulation courses. Conclusion: This study illuminates the need for formal education both in academic curriculum and through simulation to improve ultrasound-guided vascular access knowledge for patient care.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters insertion in patient with difficult vascular access: Short axis/out-of-plane versus long axis/in-plane, a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982110069
Author(s):  
Daniele Privitera ◽  
Annamaria Mazzone ◽  
Federico Pierotti ◽  
Chiara Airoldi ◽  
Alessandro Galazzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Short Axis ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ultrasound Technique ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Local Complications ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of successful peripheral cannulation between short-axis and long-axis ultrasound guided techniques. Methods: A single-center, two-arm randomized controlled, intention-to-treat, open-label study was conducted at the Emergency Department, between August and November 2020. Patients requiring a peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and identified as having a difficult intravascular access, were enrolled and followed for up to 96 h. The primary endpoint was the correct placement of the peripheral intravenous catheter. The secondary endpoints were number of venipunctures, intra-procedural pain, local complications, and positive blood return during the follow up. Results: A total of 283 patients were enrolled: 141 subjects were randomized to the short-axis and 142 to the long-axis group. Success rate was 96.45% (135/141; 95% CI, 91.92%–98.84%) in the short-axis group compared with 92.25% (132/142; 95% CI, 86.56%–96.07%) in the long-axis group ( p = 0.126). No significant differences were found in terms of intraprocedural pain and local complications. Higher rate of positive blood return at 72 h [3/17 long-axis, 14/17 short-axis ( p = 0.005)] and 96 h [1/10 long-axis, 9/10 short-axis 96 h, ( p = 0.022)] was found for the short-axis group. Conclusions: No differences were found between short-axis and long-axis techniques in terms of success rate, intraprocedural pain, and local complications. Despite this, a slightly higher success rate, a lower number of venipunctures, and a higher rate of positive blood return at 72 and 96 h together with an easier ultrasound technique could suggest a short-axis approach.

Procedural competency for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion for nurses in a pediatric emergency department

2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982093713
Author(s):  
Carly Blick ◽  
Alexandra Vinograd ◽  
Jamie Chung ◽  
Elizabeth Nguyen ◽  
Mary Kate F Abbadessa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Training Period ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Initial Training ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Intravenous Catheters

Objectives: To evaluate if nurses can reliably perform ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placement in children with a high success rate after an initial training period. A secondary aim was to analyze complication rates of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters. Methods: A database recorded all ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter encounters in the emergency department from November 2013 to April 2019 including the emergency department nurse attempting placement, number of attempts, and whether it was successful. Patient electronic medical records were reviewed for the time of and reason for intravenous removal. The probabilities of first-attempt successful intravenous placement and complication at successive encounters after an initial training period were calculated. These probabilities were plotted versus encounter number to graph best-fit logarithmic regressions. Results: A total of 83 nurses completed a standardized training program in ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placement including 10 supervised ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placements. In total, 87% (3513/4053) of the ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placed after the training program were successful on the first attempt. The probability of successfully placing an ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter increased as nurses had more experience placing ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters (R2 = 0.18) and was 83% at 10 encounters. Twenty-five percent (904/3646) of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters had complications, and there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of encounters per nurse and complication rates (R2 < 0.001). Conclusion: Nurses can reliably place ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters at a high success rate after an initial training period. First-attempt success rates were high and increased from 67% to 83% for the first 10 unsupervised encounters after training and remained high. The complication rate was low and did not change as nurses gained more experience.

No Going Back: Advantages of Ultrasound-Guided Upper Arm PICC Placement

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Simcock
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Upper Arm ◽  
Exit Site Infection ◽  
Catheter Migration ◽  
Audit Data ◽  
Change In Practice ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background, Method and Purpose: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in the UK has been steadily increasing since they were first introduced in 1995. Ultrasound-guided upper arm placement - which has become prevalent in the USA over the last few years - is gradually attracting interest amongst PICC placers in the UK. The literature shows that upper arm placement improves insertion success rate (Hockley, Hamilton, Young, Chapman, Taylor, Creed et al, 2007; Hunter, 2007; Krstenic, Brealey, Gaikwad & Maraveyas, 2008) and patient satisfaction (Polak, Anderson, Hagspiel, & Mungovan, 1998; Sansivero, 2000; McMahon, 2002). Following a switch to upper arm placement at her institution, the author examined audit data from before and after the change in practice to see if there were other measurable clinical improvements. Results: Comparison of data from a four-year period shows that upper arm placement in our patient population increased insertion success rate and line longevity, while reducing exit site infection, thrombosis and catheter migration. Implications for Practice: This data shows that ultrasound-guided upper-arm placement improves patient outcomes. PICC placers still using the more traditional antecubital approach should consider a change in practice.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e035239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Ray-Barruel ◽  
Marie Cooke ◽  
Vineet Chopra ◽  
Marion Mitchell ◽  
Claire M Rickard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Decision Time ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

ObjectiveTo describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making.Design and settingI-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.MethodsInitial 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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 number12617000067370

scholarly journals Long peripheral catheters: Is it time to address the confusion?

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 457-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby R Qin ◽  
Ramesh M Nataraja ◽  
Maurizio Pacilli
Keyword(s):  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Seldinger Technique ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Upper Arm ◽  
Peripheral Venous Catheter ◽  
Long Line ◽  
Peripheral Catheter ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Polyurethane Catheter

Long peripheral catheters are 6–15 cm peripheral dwelling catheters that are inserted via a catheter-over-needle or direct Seldinger (catheter-over-guidewire) technique. When inserted in the upper extremity, the distal tip terminates before reaching the axilla, typically no further than the mid-upper arm. This is distinct from a midline catheter, which is inserted via a modified Seldinger technique and terminates at the axilla. The nomenclature of this catheter is confusing and inconsistent. We have identified over a dozen labels in the literature, all describing the same device. These include ‘15 cm catheter’, ‘catheter inserted with a Seldinger method’, ‘extended dwell/midline peripheral catheter’, ‘Leaderflex line’, ‘long catheter’, ‘long IV catheter’, ‘long peripheral cannula’, ‘long peripheral catheter’, ‘long peripheral venous catheter’, ‘long polyurethane catheter’, ‘midline cannula’, ‘mini-midline’, ‘peripheral intravenous catheter’, ‘Seldinger catheter’, ‘short midline catheter’, ‘short long line’ and ‘ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter’. The purpose of this editorial is to achieve some level of standardisation in the nomenclature of this device. Is it time to address the confusion? We suggest adopting ‘long peripheral catheter’. However, we encourage discussion and debate in reaching a consensus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document