Identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/9098
Care of peripheral intravenous catheters in three hospitals in Spain: Mapping clinical outcomes and implementation of clinical practice guidelines
Identificadores
ISSN: 1932-6203
WOS ID: 000577103500020
Scopus EID: 2-s2.0-85092213749
PMID: 33007001
Embase PUI: L2008021802
Compartir
Estadísticas
Ver estadísticas de uso de este ítemMetadatos
Ver el registro Dublin Core del ítemFecha de publicación
2020-10-02Tipo de documento
research articleCitación
Blanco-Mavillard I, Parra-Garcia G, Fernandez-Fernandez I, Rodriguez-Calero MA, Personat-Labrador C, Castro-Sanchez E. Care of peripheral intravenous catheters in three hospitals in Spain: Mapping clinical outcomes and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 02;15(10):e0240086.Resumen
Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most widely used invasive devices worldwide. Up to 42% of PIVCs are prematurely removed during intravenous therapy due to failure. To date, there have been few systematic attempts in European hospitals to measure adherence to recommendations to mitigate PIVC failures. Aim To analyse the clinical outcomes from clinical practice guideline recommendations for PIVC care on different hospital types and environments. Methods We conducted an observational study in three hospitals in Spain from December 2017 to April 2018. The adherence to recommendations was monitored via visual inspection in situ evaluations of all PIVCs inserted in adults admitted. Context and clinical characteristics were collected by an evaluation tool, analysing data descriptively. Results 646 PIVCs inserted in 624 patients were monitored, which only 52.7% knew about their PIVC. Regarding PIVC insertion, 3.4% (22/646) patients had at least 2 PIVCs simultaneously. The majority of PIVCs were 20G (319/646; 49.4%) and were secured with transparent polyurethane dressing (605/646; 93.7%). Most PIVCs (357/646; 55.3%) had a free insertion site during the visual inspection at first sight. We identified 342/646 (53%) transparent dressings in optimal conditions (clean, dry, and intact dressing). PIVC dressings in medical wards were much more likely to be in intact conditions than those in surgical wards (234/399, 58.7% vs. 108/247, 43.7%). We identified 55/646 (8.5%) PIVCs without infusion in the last 24 hours and 58/646 (9.0%) PIVCs without infusion for more than 24 hours. Regarding PIVC failure, 74 (11.5%) adverse events were identified, all of them reflecting clinical manifestation of phlebitis. Conclusions Our findings indicate that the clinical outcome indicators from CPG for PIVC care were moderate, highlighting differences between hospital environments and types. Also, we observed that nearly 50% of patients did not know what a PIVC is.
Versión del editor
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240086MeSH
Catheterization, PeripheralYoung Adult
Spain
Adult
Humans
Nurses
Middle Aged
Hospitals
Male
Female
Treatment Outcome
Guideline Adherence
Practice Guidelines as Topic
DeCS
Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoResultado del Tratamiento
Femenino
Hospitales
Masculino
Enfermeras y Enfermeros
Humanos
Persona de Mediana Edad
Adulto Joven
Cateterismo Periférico
Adulto
Adhesión a Directriz
España
Colecciones de Docusalut en las que aparece este ítem
Hospital de Manacor - HMAN > Comunicación científicaInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Islas Baleares - IDISBA > Comunicación científica