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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of advanced nursing 2021-11, Vol.77 (11), p.4451-4458
Hauptverfasser: Kearney, Lauren, Craswell, Alison, Massey, Debbie, Marsh, Nicole, Nugent, Rachael, Alexander, Catherine, Smitheram, Carmel, McLoughlin, Anthea, Ullman, Amanda
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 &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</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 &amp; labor ; Cohort analysis ; Contusions ; Dressing ; Hospitals ; Intervention ; intrapartum ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; maternity healthcare professionals ; Midwives ; Nursing ; Pain ; peripheral intravenous access device ; Science &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; labor</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Contusions</subject><subject>Dressing</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>intrapartum</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>maternity healthcare professionals</subject><subject>Midwives</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>peripheral intravenous access device</subject><subject>Science &amp; 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 &amp; labor</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Contusions</topic><topic>Dressing</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>intrapartum</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>maternity healthcare professionals</topic><topic>Midwives</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>peripheral intravenous access device</topic><topic>Science &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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