Defining the Specialty of Vascular Access through Consensus: Shaping the Future of Vascular Access

Vascular access specialist teams versus standard practice for catheter insertion and prevention of failure: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Billions of vascular access devices (VADs) are inserted annually for intravenous therapy worldwide. However, their use is not without challenges. Facilitating the process and enhancing results, hospital authorities have created vascular access specialist teams (VASTs) with advanced competencies in the evaluation, insertion, care and management of VADs. The objective is to compare the effectiveness of VASTs versus standard practice regarding cannulation success and vascular access maintenance in hospitalised adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review, using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a structured data search on Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCOhost up to 31 May 2023. We did not impose a time limit regarding the date of publication.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were randomised and non-randomised trials and observational studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We included studies that described or evaluated the activity of VASTs compared with clinical practitioners. The outcomes analysed were the success of the cannulation and the incidence of associated adverse effects.

RESULTS

The search strategy produced 3053 papers published between 1984 and 2020, from which 12 were selected for analysis. VASTs are heterogeneously described among these studies, which mainly focus on insertions, frequently for patients with difficult intravenous access. Some patients presented with specific needs or requirement for specific insertion technique or catheter type. Compared with usual practice, these studies indicate that the involvement of a VAST is associated with a higher effectiveness in terms of first attempt insertions and insertion success rates, and a reduction in catheter-associated adverse events. However, meta-analyses confirming this trend are not currently possible.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems apparent that VASTS contribute to improving the health of patients during the administration of intravenous. VASTs seem to increase the effectiveness of VAD insertion and care and reduce complications.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021231259.

The role of hospital-based vascular access teams and implications for patient safety: A multi-methods study

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters are often placed by nurse-led vascular access teams (VATs). While some data regarding the effectiveness of these teams exists, less is known about their structure and function.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the roles, functions, and composition of VATs related to the use and management of PICC and midline catheters.

METHODS

A descriptive, multi-method study that included an online survey of 62 hospitals participating in a quality improvement consortium and qualitative interviews with 74 hospital-based clinicians in 10 sites. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a rapid analysis and matrix approach. The survey, which contained closed-ended, categorical questions, was analyzed using frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

More than 77% (n = 48) of hospitals had an on-site VAT. The average team size was seven nurses; their primary function was device insertion. Interview findings revealed that teams varied in characteristics and functions. Interviewees described the broad role that teams play in device insertion, care and removal, and in educating/training hospital staff. However, we found that teams' role in decision making, particularly related to appropriate device selection, was limited and, in some cases, met with physician resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

To realize the full benefit of VATs, changes in hospital culture, along with an increased willingness from physicians to integrate VAT nurses in decision making, may be needed. Future interventions aimed at engaging and empowering teams appear necessary.

Optimizing vascular-access device decision-making in the era of midline catheters

This narrative review addresses vascular access device choice from peripheral intravenous catheters through central venous catheters, including the evolving use of midline catheters. The review incorporates best practices, published algorithms, and complications extending beyond CLABSI and phlebitis to assist clinicians in navigating complex vascular access decisions.

Vascular access specialist teams for device insertion and prevention of failure

BACKGROUND

Most people admitted to hospitals worldwide require a vascular access device (VAD). Hundreds of millions of VADs are inserted annually in the USA with reports of over a billion peripheral intravenous catheters used annually worldwide. Numerous reports suggest that a team approach for the assessment, insertion, and maintenance of VADs improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience, and healthcare processes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of the vascular access specialist team (VAST) for VAD insertion and care to a generalist model approach for hospital or community participants requiring a VAD in terms of insertion success, device failure, and cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 7 February 2018); Ovid Embase (1980 to 7 February 2018); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 7 February 2018); Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and Social Science and Humanities (1990 to 7 February 2018); and Google Scholar. We searched the following trial registries: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (www.anzctr.org.au); ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct); HKU Clinical Trials Registry (www.hkclinicaltrials.com); Clinical Trials Registry - India (ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php); UK Clinical Trials Gateway (www.controlled-trials.com/ukctr/); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (www.who.int/trialsearch). We searched all databases on 7 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of VAST or specialist inserters for their impact on clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and used Covidence software to assist with file management.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 2398 citations: 30 studies were eligible for further examination of their full text, and we found one registered clinical trial in progress. No studies could be included in the analysis or review. We assigned one study as awaiting classification, as it has not been accepted for publication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review failed to locate relevant published RCTs to support or refute the assertion that vascular access specialist teams are superior to the generalist model. A vascular access specialist team has advanced knowledge with regard to insertion techniques, clinical care, and management of vascular access devices, whereas a generalist model comprises nurses, doctors, or other designated healthcare professionals in the healthcare facility who may have less advanced insertion techniques and who care for vascular access devices amongst other competing clinical tasks. However, this conclusion may change once the one study awaiting classification and one ongoing study are published. There is a need for good-quality RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of a vascular access specialist team approach for vascular access device insertion and care for the prevention of failure.

Tools, Clinical Prediction Rules, and Algorithms for the Insertion of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

First-time peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion success is dependent on patient, clinician, and product factors. Failed PIVC insertion are an under-recognized clinical phenomenon.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a scoping review of decision aids for PIVC insertion including tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms (TRAs) and their findings on factors associated with insertion success.

METHODS

In June 2016, a systematic literature search was performed using the medical subject heading of peripheral catheterization and tool* or rule* or algorithm*. Data extraction included clinician, patient, and/or product variables associated with PIVC insertion success. Information about TRA reliability, validity, responsiveness, and utility was also extracted.

RESULTS

We screened 36 studies, and included 13 for review. Seven papers reported insertion success ranging from 61%-90% (4030 insertion attempts), 6 on validity, and 5 on reliability, with none reporting on responsiveness and utility. Failed insertions were associated with obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71-1.7; 2 studies) and smaller gauge PIVCs (OR, 6.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI}, 3.4-11.9). Successful inser tions were associated with visible veins (OR, 0.87-3.63; 3 studies) or palpable veins (OR, 0.79-5.05; 3 studies) and inserters with greater procedural volume (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.6-12.1) or who predicted that insertion would be successful (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07). Definitions of insertion difficulty are heterogeneous such as time to insert to a number of failed attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Few well-validated reliable TRAs exist for PIVC insertion. Patients would benefit from a validated, clinically pragmatic TRA that matches insertion difficulty with clinician competency.