Observational studyJournal of advanced nursing2025
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Care at Australian Emergency Departments: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Adherence to peripheral venous catheters' guidelines by emergency nurses: A systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Implementation of an Infection Prevention Care Bundle for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters (PIVCs): A Quality Improvement Study to Enhance PIVC Quality and Reduce Complications.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) serve as crucial devices for essential care administration in emergency departments (ED). In Australia, to standardise clinical practice, the national PIVC Clinical Care Standard was introduced in 2021, however adherence to the Standard has not been adequately explored. Therefore, this study aims to investigate ED clinicians' adherence to the Standard via prospective audit.
methodThis cross-sectional observational study of PIVCs was conducted in three Australian EDs between 2022 and 2023. Data were collected in alignment with the quality indicators in the PIVC Clinical Care Standard. Research nurses collected the data from bedside observation and chart audit, with data analysed descriptively.
findingsOut of 1568 episodes of PIVC care recorded, there were notable shortcomings. ED nurses and doctors provided minimal patient partnership during insertion episodes: PIVC self-care education (n = 4, 1.4%), discussion of potential risks/benefits (n = 8, 2.9%), and reporting of concerns (n = 16, 5.8%). Insertions primarily occurred at the antecubital fossa (n = 225, 81.2%), with a common issue being inadequate time for antiseptic solution to air dry (n = 156, 56.3%). Ongoing needs assessment was unable to be assessed due to documentation limitations, which were generally incomplete. Idle catheters (inserted but not used) were prevalent (n = 115, 41.8%), and only a quarter of inpatient ward admissions (n = 75, 27.3%) had clear indications for PIVC use.
conclusionThese findings highlight the suboptimal ED PIVC practices that require attention and improvement. Innovative interventions and technology are necessary to address some of these suboptimal practices due to their complexity and persistent challenges, despite previous efforts by clinicians and researchers. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: The findings underscore the need for well-resourced efforts to ensure adherence to evidence-based practices in dynamic clinical settings. REPORTING
methodThe study is reported following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.
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.