A Decision Algorithm Is Not Superior to Clinician Judgment to Determine Need for Peripheral vs Central Venous Catheterization

Melissa Panter, Daiwai Olson, Sonja E. Stutzman, Venkatesh Aiyagari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Venous access, via a midline peripheral catheter (midline) or a peripherally inserted central catheter, is used regularly in the neurointensive care unit as a means for prolonged infusion of drugs or medications. There is little research on how to choose the appropriate access device to use in this setting. The aim of this study is to trial an algorithm to assist clinicians in determining which device to use, as a way to reduce patient complications such as central line-associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis. Methods: This quality improvement initiative included both retrospective and prospective data. A retrospective chart review was performed, and data were analyzed for variables associated with decision making between the 2 access devices. An algorithm was developed to assist clinicians with deciding between midline access and peripherally inserted central catheter access. Results: A total of 325 charts were reviewed (126 retrospective and 109 prospective). Results show no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of either group. Before intervention, clinicians chose the correct access device 86% of the time, whereas after the intervention, clinicians chose the correct device 78% of the time (P =.06). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the quality improvement intervention and algorithm decision-making tool did not improve accuracy of use of access devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)129-133
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Neuroscience Nursing
Volume51
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Central Venous Catheterization
Equipment and Supplies
Catheters
Quality Improvement
Decision Making
Venous Thrombosis
Demography
Infection
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • clinical competence
  • decision making
  • neuroscience nursing
  • quality improvement
  • venous access

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Medical–Surgical

Cite this

A Decision Algorithm Is Not Superior to Clinician Judgment to Determine Need for Peripheral vs Central Venous Catheterization. / Panter, Melissa; Olson, Daiwai; Stutzman, Sonja E.; Aiyagari, Venkatesh.

In: Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, Vol. 51, No. 3, 01.06.2019, p. 129-133.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b6962fe9c4744ca1ae3c2b2a34e5d99d,
title = "A Decision Algorithm Is Not Superior to Clinician Judgment to Determine Need for Peripheral vs Central Venous Catheterization",
abstract = "Background: Venous access, via a midline peripheral catheter (midline) or a peripherally inserted central catheter, is used regularly in the neurointensive care unit as a means for prolonged infusion of drugs or medications. There is little research on how to choose the appropriate access device to use in this setting. The aim of this study is to trial an algorithm to assist clinicians in determining which device to use, as a way to reduce patient complications such as central line-associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis. Methods: This quality improvement initiative included both retrospective and prospective data. A retrospective chart review was performed, and data were analyzed for variables associated with decision making between the 2 access devices. An algorithm was developed to assist clinicians with deciding between midline access and peripherally inserted central catheter access. Results: A total of 325 charts were reviewed (126 retrospective and 109 prospective). Results show no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of either group. Before intervention, clinicians chose the correct access device 86{\%} of the time, whereas after the intervention, clinicians chose the correct device 78{\%} of the time (P =.06). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the quality improvement intervention and algorithm decision-making tool did not improve accuracy of use of access devices.",
keywords = "clinical competence, decision making, neuroscience nursing, quality improvement, venous access",
author = "Melissa Panter and Daiwai Olson and Stutzman, {Sonja E.} and Venkatesh Aiyagari",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/JNN.0000000000000439",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "129--133",
journal = "Journal of Neuroscience Nursing",
issn = "0888-0395",
publisher = "American Association of Neuroscience Nurses",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Decision Algorithm Is Not Superior to Clinician Judgment to Determine Need for Peripheral vs Central Venous Catheterization

AU - Panter, Melissa

AU - Olson, Daiwai

AU - Stutzman, Sonja E.

AU - Aiyagari, Venkatesh

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Background: Venous access, via a midline peripheral catheter (midline) or a peripherally inserted central catheter, is used regularly in the neurointensive care unit as a means for prolonged infusion of drugs or medications. There is little research on how to choose the appropriate access device to use in this setting. The aim of this study is to trial an algorithm to assist clinicians in determining which device to use, as a way to reduce patient complications such as central line-associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis. Methods: This quality improvement initiative included both retrospective and prospective data. A retrospective chart review was performed, and data were analyzed for variables associated with decision making between the 2 access devices. An algorithm was developed to assist clinicians with deciding between midline access and peripherally inserted central catheter access. Results: A total of 325 charts were reviewed (126 retrospective and 109 prospective). Results show no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of either group. Before intervention, clinicians chose the correct access device 86% of the time, whereas after the intervention, clinicians chose the correct device 78% of the time (P =.06). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the quality improvement intervention and algorithm decision-making tool did not improve accuracy of use of access devices.

AB - Background: Venous access, via a midline peripheral catheter (midline) or a peripherally inserted central catheter, is used regularly in the neurointensive care unit as a means for prolonged infusion of drugs or medications. There is little research on how to choose the appropriate access device to use in this setting. The aim of this study is to trial an algorithm to assist clinicians in determining which device to use, as a way to reduce patient complications such as central line-associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis. Methods: This quality improvement initiative included both retrospective and prospective data. A retrospective chart review was performed, and data were analyzed for variables associated with decision making between the 2 access devices. An algorithm was developed to assist clinicians with deciding between midline access and peripherally inserted central catheter access. Results: A total of 325 charts were reviewed (126 retrospective and 109 prospective). Results show no significant differences in the demographic characteristics of either group. Before intervention, clinicians chose the correct access device 86% of the time, whereas after the intervention, clinicians chose the correct device 78% of the time (P =.06). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the quality improvement intervention and algorithm decision-making tool did not improve accuracy of use of access devices.

KW - clinical competence

KW - decision making

KW - neuroscience nursing

KW - quality improvement

KW - venous access

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065535877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065535877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000439

DO - 10.1097/JNN.0000000000000439

M3 - Article

C2 - 30964845

AN - SCOPUS:85065535877

VL - 51

SP - 129

EP - 133

JO - Journal of Neuroscience Nursing

JF - Journal of Neuroscience Nursing

SN - 0888-0395

IS - 3

ER -