Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study
Background Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of advanced nursing 2021-11, Vol.77 (11), p.4451-4458 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 4458 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 4451 |
container_title | Journal of advanced nursing |
container_volume | 77 |
creator | Kearney, Lauren Craswell, Alison Massey, Debbie Marsh, Nicole Nugent, Rachael Alexander, Catherine Smitheram, Carmel McLoughlin, Anthea Ullman, Amanda |
description | Background
Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women.
Methods
This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time.
Results
Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC.
Conclusions
Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jan.14933 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_000660628100001CitationCount</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2540512689</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3303-e5822d14277f8936b24001aca15132e1f30834040e7337f628e6bb601461ecca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQxi0EosvCgTeIxKUVpB3_iZPltor4s6hAD3COHO-EeJV1trbTam99BN6Ed-qTMO1WHJCQmMuM5d-Mvk8fYy85nHKqs43xp1wtpHzEZlzqIhdaVY_ZDCQscqFAHLFnMW4AuBRCPGVHUnFecS1n7PoCg9v1GMxwe_PL-RTMFfpxivSyJvWYMNC4Nd78wC36dE_dffZuWLcupD47vljVn1f1ydtsmW2nIbnbm5-W0IBvsl0Y4w5tcleY2bEfQ8pimtb75-xJZ4aILx76nH1__-5b_TE___phVS_PcyslyByLSog1V6Isu2ohdUtugBtreEFekHcSKqlAAZZSlp0WFeq21cCV5mitkXN2fLhLQi4njKnZumhxGIxHctmIQkHBhabjc_bqL3QzTsGTOqLKRQFackXUyYGy5CwG7JpdcFsT9g2H5i6NhtJo7tMgtjqw19iOXbQOvcU_PABoDSSZ0wS8dskkN_p6nHyi1df_v0r02QPtBtz_W1HzafnlIO03h5awCQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2579506314</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></source><creator>Kearney, Lauren ; Craswell, Alison ; Massey, Debbie ; Marsh, Nicole ; Nugent, Rachael ; Alexander, Catherine ; Smitheram, Carmel ; McLoughlin, Anthea ; Ullman, Amanda</creator><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Lauren ; Craswell, Alison ; Massey, Debbie ; Marsh, Nicole ; Nugent, Rachael ; Alexander, Catherine ; Smitheram, Carmel ; McLoughlin, Anthea ; Ullman, Amanda</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women.
Methods
This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time.
Results
Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC.
Conclusions
Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0309-2402</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2648</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jan.14933</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34118163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Best practice ; birth ; Body mass index ; Catheterization ; Catheters ; Chart reviews ; Childbearing ; Childbirth & labor ; Cohort analysis ; Contusions ; Dressing ; Hospitals ; Intervention ; intrapartum ; Life Sciences & Biomedicine ; maternity healthcare professionals ; Midwives ; Nursing ; Pain ; peripheral intravenous access device ; Science & Technology ; vascular access ; Venous access ; Women</subject><ispartof>Journal of advanced nursing, 2021-11, Vol.77 (11), p.4451-4458</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>3</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000660628100001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3303-e5822d14277f8936b24001aca15132e1f30834040e7337f628e6bb601461ecca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3303-e5822d14277f8936b24001aca15132e1f30834040e7337f628e6bb601461ecca3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0299-6537 ; 0000-0001-8603-3134 ; 0000-0002-0466-1960 ; 0000-0002-9911-861X ; 0000-0001-8860-5319 ; 0000-0002-5779-1304 ; 0000-0001-7366-042X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjan.14933$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjan.14933$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,31004,39262,39263,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craswell, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massey, Debbie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nugent, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smitheram, Carmel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLoughlin, Anthea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullman, Amanda</creatorcontrib><title>Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study</title><title>Journal of advanced nursing</title><addtitle>J ADV NURS</addtitle><description>Background
Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women.
Methods
This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time.
Results
Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC.
Conclusions
Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience.</description><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>birth</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Chart reviews</subject><subject>Childbearing</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Contusions</subject><subject>Dressing</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>intrapartum</subject><subject>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</subject><subject>maternity healthcare professionals</subject><subject>Midwives</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>peripheral intravenous access device</subject><subject>Science & Technology</subject><subject>vascular access</subject><subject>Venous access</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0309-2402</issn><issn>1365-2648</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GIZIO</sourceid><sourceid>HGBXW</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQxi0EosvCgTeIxKUVpB3_iZPltor4s6hAD3COHO-EeJV1trbTam99BN6Ed-qTMO1WHJCQmMuM5d-Mvk8fYy85nHKqs43xp1wtpHzEZlzqIhdaVY_ZDCQscqFAHLFnMW4AuBRCPGVHUnFecS1n7PoCg9v1GMxwe_PL-RTMFfpxivSyJvWYMNC4Nd78wC36dE_dffZuWLcupD47vljVn1f1ydtsmW2nIbnbm5-W0IBvsl0Y4w5tcleY2bEfQ8pimtb75-xJZ4aILx76nH1__-5b_TE___phVS_PcyslyByLSog1V6Isu2ohdUtugBtreEFekHcSKqlAAZZSlp0WFeq21cCV5mitkXN2fLhLQi4njKnZumhxGIxHctmIQkHBhabjc_bqL3QzTsGTOqLKRQFackXUyYGy5CwG7JpdcFsT9g2H5i6NhtJo7tMgtjqw19iOXbQOvcU_PABoDSSZ0wS8dskkN_p6nHyi1df_v0r02QPtBtz_W1HzafnlIO03h5awCQ</recordid><startdate>202111</startdate><enddate>202111</enddate><creator>Kearney, Lauren</creator><creator>Craswell, Alison</creator><creator>Massey, Debbie</creator><creator>Marsh, Nicole</creator><creator>Nugent, Rachael</creator><creator>Alexander, Catherine</creator><creator>Smitheram, Carmel</creator><creator>McLoughlin, Anthea</creator><creator>Ullman, Amanda</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>17B</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>GIZIO</scope><scope>HGBXW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0299-6537</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8603-3134</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0466-1960</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9911-861X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8860-5319</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-1304</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-042X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202111</creationdate><title>Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study</title><author>Kearney, Lauren ; Craswell, Alison ; Massey, Debbie ; Marsh, Nicole ; Nugent, Rachael ; Alexander, Catherine ; Smitheram, Carmel ; McLoughlin, Anthea ; Ullman, Amanda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3303-e5822d14277f8936b24001aca15132e1f30834040e7337f628e6bb601461ecca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>birth</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Chart reviews</topic><topic>Childbearing</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Contusions</topic><topic>Dressing</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>intrapartum</topic><topic>Life Sciences & Biomedicine</topic><topic>maternity healthcare professionals</topic><topic>Midwives</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>peripheral intravenous access device</topic><topic>Science & Technology</topic><topic>vascular access</topic><topic>Venous access</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kearney, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craswell, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massey, Debbie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Nicole</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nugent, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alexander, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smitheram, Carmel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLoughlin, Anthea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullman, Amanda</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI & AHCI)</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of advanced nursing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kearney, Lauren</au><au>Craswell, Alison</au><au>Massey, Debbie</au><au>Marsh, Nicole</au><au>Nugent, Rachael</au><au>Alexander, Catherine</au><au>Smitheram, Carmel</au><au>McLoughlin, Anthea</au><au>Ullman, Amanda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of advanced nursing</jtitle><stitle>J ADV NURS</stitle><date>2021-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>77</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>4451</spage><epage>4458</epage><pages>4451-4458</pages><issn>0309-2402</issn><eissn>1365-2648</eissn><abstract>Background
Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision‐making during insertion and perceptions of women.
Methods
This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non‐participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time.
Results
Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18‐gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16‐gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18‐gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision‐making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty‐four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non‐dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC.
Conclusions
Regular use of a large‐gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience.</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>34118163</pmid><doi>10.1111/jan.14933</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0299-6537</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8603-3134</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0466-1960</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9911-861X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8860-5319</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-1304</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7366-042X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0309-2402 |
ispartof | Journal of advanced nursing, 2021-11, Vol.77 (11), p.4451-4458 |
issn | 0309-2402 1365-2648 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_webofscience_primary_000660628100001CitationCount |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /> |
subjects | Best practice birth Body mass index Catheterization Catheters Chart reviews Childbearing Childbirth & labor Cohort analysis Contusions Dressing Hospitals Intervention intrapartum Life Sciences & Biomedicine maternity healthcare professionals Midwives Nursing Pain peripheral intravenous access device Science & Technology vascular access Venous access Women |
title | Peripheral intravenous catheter management in childbirth (PICMIC): A multi‐centre, prospective cohort study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T00%3A34%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Peripheral%E2%80%AFintravenous%E2%80%AFcatheter%E2%80%AFmanagement%E2%80%AFin%E2%80%AFchildbirth%20(PICMIC):%20A%20multi%E2%80%90centre,%20prospective%20cohort%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20advanced%20nursing&rft.au=Kearney,%20Lauren&rft.date=2021-11&rft.volume=77&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=4451&rft.epage=4458&rft.pages=4451-4458&rft.issn=0309-2402&rft.eissn=1365-2648&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jan.14933&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_webof%3E2540512689%3C/proquest_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2579506314&rft_id=info:pmid/34118163&rfr_iscdi=true |