Incidence of Infection
TITLE OF PRESENTATIONand Phlebitis in Peripheral IV Catheters:
Introduction
How does replacing the PIV only when
clinically indicated versus routinely
replacing the PIV affect the occurrence of
phlebitis and infection?
Infection & phlebitis rates are not
affected
Number One invasive procedure in
Health Care
200 million PIV per year in the US
Aims
Improved PIV assessment &
Documentation
Decrease overall labor & supply costs
Increased patient satisfaction via
fewer invasive procedures
Preservation of patient veins related
to decreased failed attempts
Method
Review of 14 different studies,
mainly quantitative in nature with
CINAHL search
Included systematic reviews,
integrative analysis, meta-analysis,
as well as CDC clinical practice
guidelines
wwu.edu/bsn Active Minds Changing Lives
Routine versus Clinically Indicated Replacement
Name, Credentials, Title
Amber Jones Radcliffe, RN, Kathryn Lewandowsky, RN and Tina Hoxie, RN, OCN
Results Summary
Changing PIVs only when clinically indicated, shows no increase in phlebitits or infection Benefits-
Decreased labor & supply costs
Standardization of documentation standards
Improved assessment and
Phlebitis Scale documentation
Grade 0 No symptoms Improved patient satisfaction
Grade 1 Erythema at access site with or without
Improved vein salvation
pain
Grade 2 Pain at access site with erythema and/or
edema Conclusions/Further Study
Grade 3 Pain at access site with erythema and/or
edema, streak formation, palpable venous
PIV replacement only when indicated
cord.
shows no increase in phlebitis and
Grade 4 Pain at access site with erythema and/or
edema, streak formation, palpable venous infection rates
Saves nursing time & labor
cord greater than 1 in in length; purulent
drainage. Decreases supply costs
improves patient satisfaction
(from the Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice 2011 S47)
Use of standard IV assessment scales
improves standardization of data
IV securement devices comparison
Algorithm for the replacement of PIV catheters. (Ho et al., 2011) Using IV stabilizations devices decreases
all IV complications
Using Special IV Teams decreases all
complications
Ultrasound guidance; promising new
technology decreases blind sticks &
improves vein preservation
Acknowledgements
Alekseyev, S., Byrne, M., Carpenter, A., Franker, C., Kidd, C., & Hulton, L. (2012). Prolonging the life of a patients IV: An integrative review of intravenous securement devices. MEDSURG Nursing, 21(5),
285292.
Arbique, D., Bordelon, M., Dragoo, R., & Huckaby, S. (2014). Ultrasound-guided access for peripheral intravenous therapy. MEDSURG Nursing, 115.
Brown, D., and Rowland, K. Optimal Timing for Peripheral IV Replacement? The Journal of
Family Practice 62, no. 4 (April 2013): 200202.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011) Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections, 2011. 10-16. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/bsi-guidelines-2011.pdf
Clarke, M., Randle, J. The care and maintenance of peripheral intravenous catheters. Nursing Times. Accessed June 25, 2016. http://www.nursingtimes.net/
the-care-and-maintenance-of-peripheral-intravenous-catheters/201769.fullarticle.
Fang, Chi-Tai. (2012, September). Peripheral IV in Too Long | AHRQ Patient Safety Network. Retrieved July 21, 2016, from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/webmm/case/278/peripheral-iv-in-too-long
Helm, R. E., Klausner, J. D., Klemperer, J. D., Flint, L. M., & Huang, E. (2015). Accepted but unacceptable: Peripheral IV catheter failure. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 38(3), 189203.
http://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000100
Ho, K. HM, and Cheung, D. SK. Guidelines on timing in replacing peripheral intravenous catheters. Journal of Clinical Nursing 21, no. 11/12 (June 2012): 14991506 8p.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03974.x.
Meerm, Jehangir M, Euerle, Brian, MD, & Hsu, Sam, MD. (2016). Ultrasonography assisted peripheral line placement: Overview, indications, contraindications. Retrieved from
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1433943-overview
Morrison, K., and Holt, K. The effectiveness of clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: An evidence review with implications for clinical practice.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 12, no. 4 (August 1, 2015): 18798. doi:10.1111/wvn.12102.
Ray-Barruel, G., Polit, D. F., Murfield, J. E., & Rickard, C. M. (2014). Infusion phlebitis assessment measures: A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice,
20(2), 191202. http://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12107
Sabri, A., Szalas, J., Holmes, K. S., Labib, L., & Mussivand, T. (2013). Failed attempts and improvement strategies in peripheral intravenous catheterization. Bio-Medical Materials
& Engineering, 23(1/2), 93108.
Ullman, A. J., Keogh, S., Marsh, N., and Rickard. C. M. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral catheters. British Journal of Nursing 24 (January 16, 2015):
S14S14.
Webster, J., Osborne, S., Rickard, C. M., and New, K. Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. In Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4/abstract.
Photo? Photo? Photo?
AA/EO