Prevalence of peripheral intravenous catheters and policy adherence: A point prevalence in a tertiary care university hospital

Aims and objectives To determine prevalence and policy adherence for peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) in adult inpatients at a tertiary care university hospital (with about 83,000 inpatient admissions annually). Background Up to 80% of hospitalised patients receive intravenous therapy, most commonly via PIVCs. However, these devices are not risk-free. Studies indicate that PIVC management standards in clinical practice are inadequate despite established policies promoting best practice. This leads to premature failure resulting in treatment delays, extended length of stay and potential compromised venous access for subsequent IV therapy. Design Observational point prevalence study. Methods Study undertaken on all adult acute care medical, surgical and oncology wards. Data were collected by senior registered nurses working in pairs on a single day. Descriptive statistics used to analyse data. SQUIRE 2.0 checklist for quality improvement reporting used. Results There were 449 adult inpatients in 19 wards on survey day. One hundred and ninety-seven had one or more PIVCs in situ. The total number of PIVCs in-situ was 212. PIVC Prevalence was 47%. PIVCs were inserted in points of flexion such as antecubital fossa, back of hand or wrist in 52% of patients. Only 19% of cases had documented assessment of 8-hourly visual infusion phlebitis (VIP) score. Patients had local signs of phlebitis in 14.4% of cases. Patients were not aware of the reason/need for their PIVC in 44% of cases. Conclusions Discrepancies between evidence-based guidelines and local policy in clinical practice were identified including high rates of PIVC insertion in points of flexion and poor documentation. These quality problems increase likelihood of adverse patient outcomes especially when associated with limited patient awareness of the reason for their PIVC. Relevance to clinical practice Poor adherence to best practice standards is 'accepted but unacceptable'. PIVC failure is costly to both patients and health systems. A strong focus on improvement in PIVC care and management is needed.