Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRickard, Claireen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcCann, Damhnaten_US
dc.contributor.authorMunnings, Janeen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcGrail, Matthewen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:25:04Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:25:04Z
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.date.modified2011-01-27T06:44:47Z
dc.identifier.issn17417015en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1741-7015-8-53en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/34984
dc.description.abstractBackground Peripheral intravenous device (IVD) complications were traditionally thought to be reduced by limiting dwell time. Current recommendations are to resite IVDs by 96 hours with the exception of children and patients with poor veins. Recent evidence suggests routine resite is unnecessary, at least if devices are inserted by a specialised IV team. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral IVD 'routine resite' with 'removal on clinical indication' on IVD complications in a general hospital without an IV team. Methods A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in a regional teaching hospital. After ethics approval, 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomised to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). IVDs were inserted and managed by the general hospital medical and nursing staff; there was no IV team. The primary endpoint was a composite of IVD complications: phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, accidental removal, local infection, and device-related bloodstream infection. Results IVD complication rates were 68 per 1,000 IVD days (clinically indicated) and 66 per 1,000 IVD days (routine replacement) (P = 0.86; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). Time to first complication per patient did not differ between groups (KM with log rank, P = 0.53). There were no local infections or IVD-related bloodstream infections in either group. IV therapy duration did not differ between groups (P = 0.22), but more (P = 0.004) IVDs were placed per patient in the routine replacement (mean, 1.8) than the clinical indication group (mean, 1.5), with significantly higher hospital costs per patient (P < 0.001). Conclusions Resite on clinical indication would allow one in two patients to have a single cannula per course of IV treatment, as opposed to one in five patients managed with routine resite; overall complication rates appear similar. Clinically indicated resite would achieve savings in equipment, staff time and patient discomfort. There is growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral IVDs with removal only on clinical indication.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent446152 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd.en_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto10en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue53en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBMC Medicineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume8en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care)en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111003en_US
dc.titleRoutine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trialen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0en_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Nursing and Midwiferyen_US
gro.description.notepublicPage numbers are not for citation purposes. Instead, this article has the unique article number of 2010, 8:53.en_AU
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2010 Rickard et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_AU
gro.date.issued2010
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record