Reliability and compliance of peripheral intravenous catheter documentation: A prospective observational study.

Q3 Medicine
Amit Bahl, Nicholas Mielke, Steven Johnson
{"title":"Reliability and compliance of peripheral intravenous catheter documentation: A prospective observational study.","authors":"Amit Bahl, Nicholas Mielke, Steven Johnson","doi":"10.1177/11297298221097555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Proper documentation of the functionality and complications of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) is the standard of care. This data can improve communication among team members about access concerns and highlight opportunities to improve PIVC care. Our objective is to determine if nursing personnel are compliant with institutional standards for documentation and documentation is reliable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational analysis was conducted at a tertiary care academic center with 120,000 ED visits and 1100 hospital beds. Adults over 18 with a PIVC placed in the ED via palpation technique who were being admitted to regular medical/surgical wards were eligible. The primary outcome was compliance with PIVC documentation per institutional standards. Secondary outcomes included compliance subcategorized as insertion, daily assessment, and removal and reliability of assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During July and August 2020, 77 patients were enrolled with a total of 1201 observations of PIVC compliance. PIVC documentation compliance was 86.0% (1033/1201). Compliance on insertion and removal was 93.3% (431/462) and 80.5% (186/231), respectively, with removal assessment being the least compliant at 49.4%. Daily catheter assessments were compliant 81.9% (416/508) of the time. PIVC documentation reliability was based on 693 total observations with 87.9% (609/693) reliability overall, and a reliability of 91.6% (423/462) and 74.9% (173/231) for insertion and removal, respectively. PIVC orientation had the highest reliability (98.7%) while post-removal assessment had the lowest reliability (45.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We observed moderate documentation compliance and reliability for PIVC assessments for catheters placed in the ED. Documentation of removal-related variables was the most deficient aspect of the assessments. Given the high rate of PIVC failure and its vast array of consequences, improvement of PIVC documentation of removal reasons is essential to better identify type and incidence of complications and help develop targeted solutions. Further larger studies are needed to survey PIVC documentation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298221097555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Proper documentation of the functionality and complications of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) is the standard of care. This data can improve communication among team members about access concerns and highlight opportunities to improve PIVC care. Our objective is to determine if nursing personnel are compliant with institutional standards for documentation and documentation is reliable.

Methods: This prospective observational analysis was conducted at a tertiary care academic center with 120,000 ED visits and 1100 hospital beds. Adults over 18 with a PIVC placed in the ED via palpation technique who were being admitted to regular medical/surgical wards were eligible. The primary outcome was compliance with PIVC documentation per institutional standards. Secondary outcomes included compliance subcategorized as insertion, daily assessment, and removal and reliability of assessments.

Results: During July and August 2020, 77 patients were enrolled with a total of 1201 observations of PIVC compliance. PIVC documentation compliance was 86.0% (1033/1201). Compliance on insertion and removal was 93.3% (431/462) and 80.5% (186/231), respectively, with removal assessment being the least compliant at 49.4%. Daily catheter assessments were compliant 81.9% (416/508) of the time. PIVC documentation reliability was based on 693 total observations with 87.9% (609/693) reliability overall, and a reliability of 91.6% (423/462) and 74.9% (173/231) for insertion and removal, respectively. PIVC orientation had the highest reliability (98.7%) while post-removal assessment had the lowest reliability (45.5%).

Conclusions: We observed moderate documentation compliance and reliability for PIVC assessments for catheters placed in the ED. Documentation of removal-related variables was the most deficient aspect of the assessments. Given the high rate of PIVC failure and its vast array of consequences, improvement of PIVC documentation of removal reasons is essential to better identify type and incidence of complications and help develop targeted solutions. Further larger studies are needed to survey PIVC documentation practices.

外周静脉导管记录的可靠性和依从性:前瞻性观察研究。
目的:正确记录外周静脉导管 (PIVC) 的功能和并发症是护理的标准。这些数据可以改善团队成员之间关于使用问题的沟通,并突出改善 PIVC 护理的机会。我们的目标是确定护理人员是否符合机构的记录标准,以及记录是否可靠:这项前瞻性观察分析在一家拥有 12 万急诊就诊人次和 1100 张病床的三级医疗学术中心进行。在急诊室通过触诊技术置入 PIVC 的 18 岁以上成人均符合条件,他们将被送入常规内科/外科病房。主要结果是PIVC记录是否符合机构标准。次要结果包括按插入、日常评估、移除和评估可靠性分类的依从性:结果:2020 年 7 月和 8 月期间,共有 77 名患者登记,共观察到 1201 次 PIVC 合规性。PIVC 文件合规率为 86.0%(1033/1201)。插入和拔出导管的依从性分别为 93.3%(431/462)和 80.5%(186/231),拔出导管评估的依从性最低,仅为 49.4%。每日导管评估的达标率为 81.9%(416/508)。PIVC 记录可靠性基于 693 次观察结果,总体可靠性为 87.9%(609/693),插入和拔出可靠性分别为 91.6%(423/462)和 74.9%(173/231)。PIVC定位的可靠性最高(98.7%),而移除后评估的可靠性最低(45.5%):我们观察到,在急诊室置入导管时,PIVC 评估记录的合规性和可靠性均处于中等水平。结论:我们观察到,在急诊室置入导管的 PIVC 评估中,文件记录的合规性和可靠性都处于中等水平。鉴于 PIVC 的高失败率及其广泛的后果,改进 PIVC 移除原因的文档记录对于更好地识别并发症的类型和发生率以及帮助制定有针对性的解决方案至关重要。需要进一步开展更大规模的研究,调查 PIVC 记录的做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信