The strategic role of the nurse in the selection of IV devices

Division of Nursing, Diagnostic Center, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas of the School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo/SP, Brazil.
British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing) 11/2012; 21(21):S28, S30-2. DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2012.21.Sup21.S28
Source: PubMed


Use of vascular devices represents one of the most common procedures used as a complementary measure in the treatment of patients. An indication algorithm was established to serve as a guideline for nurses in choosing the best intravenous device, considering the main variables of drug therapy. A protocol approved by the Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (IOT-HCFMUSP), where the authors work, was subsequently established and the nurse carried out the evaluation for the indication of both the peripheral device and the central device, whether a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or other device inserted by the physician. As a result, there was a decrease in the incidence of phlebitis from 0.77% in 2010 to 0.17% in 2011, with an annual curve of negative tendency. The nursing team also appeared more satisfied, diminishing stress related to puncture failure.

Download full-text


Available from: Thais Queiroz Santolim, Sep 10, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in hospitalized patients is already well established by studies and guidelines, and PICCs are widely used at our institution. However, few studies have been published examining patients using the device in day hospital systems; specifically, if the device brings about early dehospitalization, if it facilitates quick return to coexistence in society and to work, and how to plan medication administration through this system. Our general objective was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the use of PICCs in patients undergoing prolonged intravenous treatment. We selected patients using PICCs in the day hospital at the Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology at Clinics Hospital of the School of Medicine of the University of São Paulo, conducted a semistructured interview, and did an analysis of medical records. The most frequent diagnoses that led to use of a PICC were postoperative infection (53.84%) and osteomyelitis (23.07%). Teicoplanin was the most common drug prescribed, followed by vancomycin. Regarding the puncture site, the basilic vein prevailed with 69.23%. Most of the catheters (61.54%) remained in place from 60 to 150 days. The end of the drug therapy was the reason for removal in 66.4% of cases. Regarding pain assessment, 88.47% of patients declared they did not feel any pain or felt moderate pain during the PICC insertion procedure. Based on the data collected, it can be concluded that PICCs are reliable devices for a wide variety of intravenous infusions used in patients treated at our day hospital.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2014 · Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Annals of internal medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: to assess nurses' perceptions of risk factors for the development of phlebitis, with a special focus on the perception of phlebitic potentials of some infusion medications and solutions. Method: a cross-sectional questionnaire study, which included a sample of 102 nurses. Results: Nurses recognized some factors that may reduce the incidence of phlebitis; however, more than half of the nurses were unaware that the material and diameter of the cannula can affect the incidence rate of phlebitis. Furthermore,underlying disease and high pH of medications or solutions were identified as potential risk factors, whereas low pH and low osmolality were not. Nurses identified Vancomycin and Benzylpenicillin antibiotics with the strongest phlebitic potential. Among other medications and intravenous fluids, Aminophylline, Amiodaronehydrochloride and Potassium chloride 7.4% were identified as potentially causing phlebitis. Conclusion: predisposing factors for phlebitis relating to patients and administered therapy were identified by nurses, while some cannula related risk factors, in particular its physicochemical properties and the time for cannula replacement, were not fully perceived.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015