Derivation of a clinical decision-making aid to improve the insertion of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters and promote vessel health preservation. An observational study

Peter J. Carr, James C.R. Rippey, Marie L. Cooke, Niall S. Higgins, Michelle L. Trevenen, Aileen Foale, Gerben Keijzers, Claire M. Rickard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80% likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. Results In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68% of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.17–4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.02–5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 1.15–8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95% CI = 1.58–11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician’s pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80% was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95% CI = 2.06–4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Conclusions Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- “Does this patient need A-PIVC?” Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician’s perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80%.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0213923
JournalPLoS One
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Catheters
observational studies
catheters
Observational Studies
decision making
Decision making
Health
decision support systems
Computerized tomography
tomography
blood vessels
odds ratio
Hospital Emergency Service
confidence interval
Clinical Decision-Making
Odds Ratio
Tomography
Confidence Intervals
Vascular Access Devices

Cite this

@article{448e153c646e499ea8da0f93c9087918,
title = "Derivation of a clinical decision-making aid to improve the insertion of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters and promote vessel health preservation. An observational study",
abstract = "Background It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80{\%} likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. Results In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68{\%} of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) = 2.17–4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95{\%} CI = 2.02–5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95{\%} CI = 1.15–8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95{\%} CI = 1.58–11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician’s pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80{\%} was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95{\%} CI = 2.06–4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Conclusions Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- “Does this patient need A-PIVC?” Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician’s perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80{\%}.",
author = "Carr, {Peter J.} and Rippey, {James C.R.} and Cooke, {Marie L.} and Higgins, {Niall S.} and Trevenen, {Michelle L.} and Aileen Foale and Gerben Keijzers and Rickard, {Claire M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0213923",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "P L o S One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science (PLoS)",
number = "3",

}

Derivation of a clinical decision-making aid to improve the insertion of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters and promote vessel health preservation. An observational study. / Carr, Peter J.; Rippey, James C.R.; Cooke, Marie L.; Higgins, Niall S.; Trevenen, Michelle L.; Foale, Aileen; Keijzers, Gerben; Rickard, Claire M.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 14, No. 3, e0213923, 01.03.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Derivation of a clinical decision-making aid to improve the insertion of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters and promote vessel health preservation. An observational study

AU - Carr, Peter J.

AU - Rippey, James C.R.

AU - Cooke, Marie L.

AU - Higgins, Niall S.

AU - Trevenen, Michelle L.

AU - Foale, Aileen

AU - Keijzers, Gerben

AU - Rickard, Claire M.

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Background It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80% likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. Results In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68% of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.17–4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.02–5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 1.15–8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95% CI = 1.58–11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician’s pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80% was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95% CI = 2.06–4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Conclusions Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- “Does this patient need A-PIVC?” Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician’s perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80%.

AB - Background It is well established that the idle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) provides no therapeutic value and is a clinical, economic and above all, patient concern. This study aimed to develop a decision aid to assist with clinical decision making to promote clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheter (CIPIVC) insertion in the emergency department (ED) setting. Providing evidence for a uniform process could assist clinicians in a decision-making process for PIVC insertion. This could enable patients receive appropriate vascular access healthcare. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicentre cohort of emergency department clinicians who performed PIVC insertion. We defined CIPIVC a priori as one used for a specific clinical treatment and or procedure such as prescribed intravenous (IV) fluids; prescribed IV medication; or IV contrast (for computerized tomography scans). We sought to refute or validate an assumption if the clinician performing or requesting the insertion decided the patient was >80% likely to need a PIVC. Using logistic regression, we derived a decision aid for CIPIVCs. Results In 817 patients undergoing PIVC insertion, we observed 68% of these to be CIPIVCs. Admitted patients were significantly more likely to have a CIPIVC, Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.17–4.30, p = <0.0001. Before insertion, patients who definitely needed IV fluids/medicines OR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.02–5.39, p = <0.0001 and who definitely needed a contrast scan OR = 3.04, 95% CI = 1.15–8.03, p = 0.0250 were significantly more likely to have a device inserted for a clinical indication. Patients who presented with an existing vascular access device were more likely to have a new CIPIVC inserted for use OR = 4.35, 95% CI = 1.58–11.95, p = 0.0043. The clinician’s pre-procedural judgment of the likelihood of therapeutic use >80% was independently associated with CIPIVC; OR 3.16, 95% CI = 2.06–4.87, p<0.0001. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, and at the best cut-off, the model had a specificity of 0.81, sensitivity of 0.71, a positive predictive value of 0.89 and negative predictive value of 0.57. Conclusions Using the derived decision aid, clinicians could ask:- “Does this patient need A-PIVC?” Clinicians can decide to insert a CIPIVCs when: (i) Admission to hospital is anticipated and when (ii) a Procedure requires a PIVC, e.g., computerised tomography scans and where an existing suitable vascular access device is not present and or; (iii) there is an indication for IV fluids and or medicines that cannot be tolerated enterally and are suitable for dilution in peripheral veins; and, (iv) the Clinician’s perceived likelihood of use is greater than 80%.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063321024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0213923

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0213923

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - P L o S One

JF - P L o S One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 3

M1 - e0213923

ER -