ArticleBMJ open2022
Peripheral intravenous cannulation decision-making in emergency settings: a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reducing Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Use in Adult Acute Care: A Systematic Review.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Pooled it
- Observational
- Peripheral intravenous catheter use in French emergency departments (CathIRU study): a multicentre cross-sectional study of non-indicated insertion rate and practice patterns.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Factors associated with idle peripheral intravenous catheters: a point-prevalence study using the Donabedian model.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Peripheral Intravenous Access Rates Obtained by Emergency Medical Services in Pediatric Patients: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRates of unused (
designA qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.
settingGold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and local government ambulance service.
participantsParticipants recruited were ED clinicians (doctors, nurses) and paramedics who regularly insert PIVCs.
resultsFrom the 15 clinicians interviewed 4 key themes:
conclusionThe decision to insert a PIVC is more complicated than clinicians, administrators and policy-makers may realise. When explored, clinician decisions were multifaceted with many factors influencing the decision to insert a PIVC. In actual practice, clinicians routinely insert PIVCs in most patients as a learnt reflex with little cognitive input. When considering PIVC insertion, more time needs to be devoted to the awareness of: (1) decision-making in the context of the clinician's own experience, (2) cognitive biases and (3) patient-centred factors. Such awareness will support an appropriate risk assessment which will benefit the patient, clinician and healthcare system.
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.