Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31488150›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Monitoring quality of care for peripheral intravenous catheters; feasibility and reliability of the peripheral intravenous catheters mini questionnaire (PIVC-miniQ).

Lise Husby Høvik, Kari Hanne Gjeilo, Stian Lydersen, Claire M Rickard, Benedikte Røtvold, Jan Kristian Damås, Erik Solligård, Lise Tuset Gustad

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The I-DECIDEDJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lise Husby HøvikDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postbox 8905, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. lise.hovik@ntnu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6380-029X
Kari Hanne GjeiloDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postbox 8905, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Stian LydersenRegional Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare, Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Claire M RickardAlliance for Vascular Access teaching and Research, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Benedikte RøtvoldDepartment of Anesthesia, Levanger Hospital, Clinic of Surgery, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust, Levanger, Norway.
Jan Kristian DamåsGemini Center for Sepsis Research, St. Olavs Hospital and Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Erik SolligårdDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postbox 8905, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Lise Tuset GustadDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Postbox 8905, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) account for a mean of 38% of catheter associated bloodstream infections (CABSI) with Staphylococcus aureus, which are preventable if deficiencies in best practice are addressed. There exists no feasible and reliable quality surveillance tool assessing all important areas related to PIVC quality. Thus, we aimed to develop and test feasibility and reliability for an efficient quality assessment tool of overall PIVC quality.

methodsThe Peripheral Intravenous Catheter- mini Questionnaire, PIVC-miniQ, consists of 16 items calculated as a sum score of problems regarding the insertion site, condition of dressing and equipment, documentation, and indication for use. In addition, it contains background variables like PIVC site, size and insertion environment. Two hospitals tested the PIVC-miniQ for feasibility and inter-rater agreement. Each PIVC was assessed twice, 2-5 min apart by two independent raters. We calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each hospital and overall. For each of the 16 items, we calculated negative agreement, positive agreement, absolute agreement, and Scott's pi.

resultsSixty-three raters evaluated 205 PIVCs in 177 patients, each PIVC was assessed twice by independent raters, in total 410 PIVC observations. ICC between raters was 0.678 for hospital A, 0.577 for hospital B, and 0.604 for the pooled data. Mean time for the bedside assessment of each PIVC was 1.40 (SD 0.0007) minutes. The most frequent insertion site symptom was "pain and tenderness" (14.4%), whereas the most prevalent overall problem was lack of documentation of the PIVC (26.8%). Up to 50% of PIVCs were placed near joints (wrist or antecubital fossae) or were inserted under suboptimal conditions, i.e. emergency department or ambulance.

conclusionsOur study highlights the need for PIVC quality surveillance on ward and hospital level and reports the PIVC-miniQ to be a reliable and time efficient tool suitable for frequent point-prevalence audits.

Indexed as

AdultCatheterization, PeripheralCatheter-Related InfectionsEmergency Service, HospitalFeasibility StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayReproducibility of ResultsStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusSurveys and QuestionnairesPeripheral intravenous catheterQuality assessmentQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31488150
PMCPMC6729030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.