ArticlePloS one2020
Care of peripheral intravenous catheters in three hospitals in Spain: Mapping clinical outcomes and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurses' Involvement in the Development and Usability Assessment of an Innovative Peripheral Intravenous Catheterisation Pack: A Mix-Method Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Implementation of a multimodal strategy via a mobile application to reduce catheter failure in patients with vascular access devices in Spain (CUIDAVEN Study): a pre-post intervention study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Non-Adherence to Peripheral Venous Catheter Care Protocols Significantly Decreases Patient Safety and Impacts Costs: A Retrospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Management from a multidisciplinary perspective of phlebitis related to peripheral venous catheter insertion: An international Delphi study.Nursing open · 2024Article
- What fuels suboptimal care of peripheral intravenous catheter-related infections in hospitals? A qualitative study of decision-making among Spanish nurses.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Article
- Occupational Safety and Health Training for Undergraduates Nursing Students: A Spanish Pilot.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most widely used invasive devices worldwide. Up to 42% of PIVCs are prematurely removed during intravenous therapy due to failure. To date, there have been few systematic attempts in European hospitals to measure adherence to recommendations to mitigate PIVC failures.
aimTo analyse the clinical outcomes from clinical practice guideline recommendations for PIVC care on different hospital types and environments.
methodsWe conducted an observational study in three hospitals in Spain from December 2017 to April 2018. The adherence to recommendations was monitored via visual inspection in situ evaluations of all PIVCs inserted in adults admitted. Context and clinical characteristics were collected by an evaluation tool, analysing data descriptively.
results646 PIVCs inserted in 624 patients were monitored, which only 52.7% knew about their PIVC. Regarding PIVC insertion, 3.4% (22/646) patients had at least 2 PIVCs simultaneously. The majority of PIVCs were 20G (319/646; 49.4%) and were secured with transparent polyurethane dressing (605/646; 93.7%). Most PIVCs (357/646; 55.3%) had a free insertion site during the visual inspection at first sight. We identified 342/646 (53%) transparent dressings in optimal conditions (clean, dry, and intact dressing). PIVC dressings in medical wards were much more likely to be in intact conditions than those in surgical wards (234/399, 58.7% vs. 108/247, 43.7%). We identified 55/646 (8.5%) PIVCs without infusion in the last 24 hours and 58/646 (9.0%) PIVCs without infusion for more than 24 hours. Regarding PIVC failure, 74 (11.5%) adverse events were identified, all of them reflecting clinical manifestation of phlebitis.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the clinical outcome indicators from CPG for PIVC care were moderate, highlighting differences between hospital environments and types. Also, we observed that nearly 50% of patients did not know what a PIVC is.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.