References

Platt V, Osenkarski S Improving vascular access outcomes and enhancing practice. J Infus Nurs. 2018; 41:(6)375-382

Morrell E Reducing risks and improving vascular access outcomes. J Infusion Nurs. 2020; 43:(4)222-228

Barton A, Ventura R, Vavrik B Peripheral intravenous cannulation: protecting patients and nurses. Br J Nurs. 2017; 26:(8)S28-S33

Jagger J, Perry J, Parker G Blood exposure risk during peripheral I.V. catheter insertion and removal. Nurs Crit Care. 2012; 7:(6)10-15

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational safety and health standards: bloodborne pathogens (Standard No. 1910.1030). 1991. https//www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1030

Jagger J, Perry J, Gomaa A, Phillips EK The impact of U.S. policies to protect healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens: the critical role of safety-engineered devices. J Infect. Public Health. 2008; 1:62-71

Tosini W, Ciotti C, Goyer F Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31:(4)402-407

Yeh J, Valencia D, Ballek S Clinician acceptability of a peripheral intravenous passive safety catheter with blood control: practical use article. JAVA. 2023; 28:(3)20-29

Brown S Likert scale examples for surveys.: Iowa State University Extension; 2010 https//www.extension.iastate.edu/documents/anr/likertscaleexamplesforsurveys.pdf

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Draft guidance for industry and FDA staff: human factors studies and related clinical study considerations in combination product design and development. 2016. https//www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/application-human-factors-engineering-principles-combination-productsquestions-and-answers

: Guidance for industry and Fodd and Drug Administration staff; 2016 https//www.fda.gov/media/86420/download

Haeseler G, Hildebrand M, Fritscher J Efficacy and ease of use of an intravenous catheter designed to prevent blood leakage: a prospective observational trial. J Vasc Access. 2015; 16:(3)233-236

Seiberlich LE, Keay V, Kallos S Clinical performance of a new blood control peripheral intravenous catheter: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Int Emer Nurs. 2016; 25:59-64

Mannocci A, De Carli G, Di Bari V How much do needlestick injuries cost? A systemic review of the economic evaluations of needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare personnel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37:(6)635-646

Richardson D, Kaufman L Reducing blood exposure risk and costs associated with SPIVC insertion. Nursing Management. 2011; 31-34

Onia R, Eshun-Wilson I, Arce C Evaluation of a new safety peripheral IV catheter designed to reduce mucocutaneous blood exposure. CMRO. 2011; 27:(7)1339-1346

Tee FY, Low CSL, Matizha P Patient perceptions and experience of pain, anxiety and comfort during peripheral intravenous cannulation in medical wards: topical anaesthesia, effective communication, and empowerment. Int J Nurs Sci. 2015; 5:(2)41-46

McGown D Peripheral intravenous cannulation: managing distress and anxiety. BJON. 2014; 23:(19)S4-S9

Evaluation of a safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter with multiple access blood control: clinician acceptability and ease of use

18 July 2024
Volume 33 · Issue 14

Abstract

Aim:

Acceptability of a new safety-engineered peripherally inserted intravenous catheter (PIVC) with multiple access blood control (MBC) was evaluated in this observational study by experienced volunteer clinicians on healthy volunteers.

Methods:

Clinicians and healthy volunteers were recruited for this study. Observers documented study procedures, including if there was any blood leakage from the catheter hub at various times during hub connections and disconnections and how many attempts it took a clinician to get a successful stick. Clinicians responded to yes-or-no and Likert-scale questionnaires describing their experiences with PIVC with MBC after each procedure. Questionnaire data were summarized by frequency and percent of responses; analyses were conducted using binomial statistics.

Results:

Overall, clinicians considered PIVC with MBC to be acceptable (93.6% agreement). Clinicians were able to easily remove the catheter protective cap, insert the catheter, visualize primary and secondary flashbacks, easily remove the needle from the catheter hub and determine if the safety clip was activated after withdrawing the needle. In addition, they were able to connect or disconnect and flush extension sets. Clinicians did not have to change their insertion technique, found the catheter easy to insert, and believed the catheter would protect them from blood exposure during insertion of the catheter and subsequent hub accesses (agreement ranged from 82.3% to 98.9%).

Conclusions:

No blood leakage was observed from the catheter hub at any time during the procedures. Overall, clinicians found the new PIVC with MBC to be acceptable, easy to use, and functioned properly.

HIGHLIGHTS

Acceptability, usability, and ease of use of a new safety-engineered PIVC with MBC was evaluated.

PIVC with MBC was >93% acceptable: prevented blood exposure after multiple insertions/removals.

Most clinicians (96%) achieved first stick success when using their product.

PIVC with MBC was easy to use, worked properly and allowed clinicians to keep their PIVC technique.

It is well established that peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is one of the most common and essential interventions in the health care system.13 While intravenous (IV) catheters are considered non-significant risk devices and IV catheter insertion has immediate benefits to the patient,4 health care workers (HCWs) are vulnerable to blood exposure and needlestick injuries (NSIs) as a result of these procedures.3

The risk of NSI from IV catheters has been studied extensively; less attention has been paid on characterizing and reducing the overall blood exposure sustained by HCWs during PIVC insertion or removal.5When blood exposure occurs on non-intact skin or mucous membranes, bloodborne pathogen transmission may occur. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that IV insertion was the second highest source of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exposure for HCWs, even though IV catheter needles account for a small fraction of sharps used in health care settings. In a 2012 survey conducted among 350 HCWs, respondents reported mucous membrane or skin contact with blood during insertion (46%) and removal (42%) of a PIVC.5

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Nursing and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for nurses. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content