ArticleBMC research notes2026
Factors associated with idle peripheral intravenous catheters: a point-prevalence study using the Donabedian model.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the point prevalence of idle peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) and identify associated factors using the Donabedian framework (structure, process, outcome) in a tertiary care setting.
resultsAmong patients with PIVC (n = 118), 35 (29.7%) had an idle catheter. Documentation gaps were evident: only 67.8% had a clear indication for continued use, and only 22.9% had a documented removal plan. Precautionary “just-in-case” placement (28.0% of PIVCs) was strongly associated with idle status (adjusted OR 7.76, 95% CI 2.02–29.78, p = 0.003). Conversely, having a documented indication for continued use was associated with lower odds of idleness (adjusted OR 0.037, 95% CI 0.010–0.136, p < 0.001). These findings highlight critical and modifiable process failures within the Donabedian framework. While the cross-sectional design precludes causal conclusions, these associations suggest that interventions should focus on enforcing documentation protocols, reducing precautionary insertions, and implementing standardized removal pathways to enhance patient safety and resource utilization.
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.