References

Alexandrou E., Ray-Barruel G., Carr P. J., Frost S. A., Inwood S., Higgins N., Lin F., Alberto L., Mermel L., Rickard C. M. Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018; 13:(5) https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3039

Allnurses.com. IV left in arm after discharge. 2018. https://allnurses.com/iv-left-arm-discharge-t668708/

Aufricht G., Hoang J., Iglesias J., Latiolais H., Sheffield H., Trejo C., Holder M., Smith S., Garrett J., Columbus C. Analysis of central venous catheter utilization at a quaternary care hospital. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center). 2019; 32:(1)1-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2018.1542651

Becerra M. B., Shirley D., Safdar N. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of idle intravenous catheters: An integrative review. American Journal of Infection Control. 2016; 44:(10)e167-e172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.073

Grieving family wants to know how hospital failed to remove cannula. 2019. https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/6547978/family-wants-answersfrom-mch/

Bourgault A. M., Penoyer D. A., Upvall M. J. It depends. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2021; 44:(2)103-112 https://doi.org/10.1097/nan.0000000000000418

Canadian Vascular Access and Infusion Therapy Guidelines.: Pappin Communications; 2019

Castro-Sanchez E., Charani E., Drumright L. N., Sevdalis N., Shah N., Holmes A. H. Fragmentation of care threatens patient safety in peripheral vascular catheter management in acute care—a qualitative study. PLOS One. 2014; 9:(1) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086167

Chandramohan S., Navalkele B., Mushtaq A., Krishna A., Kacir J., Chopra T. Impact of a multidisciplinary infection prevention initiative on central line and urinary catheter utilization in a long-term acute care hospital. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2018; 5:(7) https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy156

Chen S., O'Malley M., Chopra V. How common are indwelling devices in hospitalized adults? A contemporary point prevalence study in a tertiary care hospital. American Journal of Infection Control. 2021; 49:(2)194-197 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.06.205

Chopra V., Govindan S., Kuhn L., Ratz D., Sweis R. F., Melin N., Thompson R., Tolan A., Barron J., Saint S. Do clinicians know which of their patients have central venous catheters?: a multicenter observational study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014; 161:(8)562-567 https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0703

Cooke M., Ullman A. J., Ray-Barruel G., Wallis M., Corley A., Rickard C. M. Not ‘just’ an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries. PLOS One. 2018; 13:(2) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193436

Corley A., Ullman A. J., Mihala G., Ray-Barruel G., Alexandrou E., Rickard C. M. Peripheral intravenous catheter dressing and securement practice is associated with site complications and suboptimal dressing integrity: A secondary analysis of 40,637 catheters. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2019; 100 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103409

Corral-Gudino L., Rivas-Lamazares A., Gonzalez-Fernandez A., Rodriguez-Maria M., Aguilera-Sanz C., Tierra-Rodriguez A., Runza-Buznego P., Hernandez-Martin E., Ortega-Gil M., Bahamonde-Carrasco A. Does my patient really need this at admission? Seven opportunities for improving value in patient care during their hospitalization. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2019; 66:92-98 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2019.06.007

Egerton-Warburton D., McAllan F., Ramanan R., Lim Z. J., Nagle D., Dendle C., Stuart R. Human factor-designed multimodal intervention reduces the rate of unused peripheral intravenous cannula insertion. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2019; 31:(3)372-377 https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13165

Gazarin M., Ingram-Crooks J., Hafizi F., Hall L., Weekes K., Casselman C., Burnett S., Lennard M., Pinches A., Tse D. Improving urinary catheterisation practices in a rural hospital in Ontario. BMJ Open Quality. 2020; 9:(1) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000703

IV catheter left in woman's arm. 2021. https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2291721

Giles M., Graham L., Ball J., King J., Watts W., Harris A., Oldmeadow C., Ling R., Paul M., O'Brien A., Parker V., Wiggers J., Foureur M. Implementation of a multifaceted nurse-led intervention to reduce indwelling urinary catheter use in four Australian hospitals: A pre-and postintervention study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2020; 29:(5-6)872-886 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15142

Goossens G. A. Flushing and locking of venous catheters: Available evidence and evidence deficit. Nursing and Research Practice, 2015. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/985686

Gorski L., Hadaway L., Hagle M., McGoldrick M., Orr M., Doellman D. Infusion therapy standards of practice. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2021; 44

Gould C. V., Umscheid C. A., Agarwal R. K., Kuntz G., Pegues D. A. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2010; 31:(4)319-326 https://doi.org/10.1086/651091

Kaminski M. A., Episcopia B., Malik S., Fornek M., Landman D., Xavier G., Quale J. Trends in central-lineassociated bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections in a large acute-care hospital system in New York City, 2016-2019. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2021; 42:(7)842-846 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.1293

Kara A., Johnson C. S., Murray M., Dillon J., Hui S. L. Can the identification of an idle line facilitate its removal? A comparison between a proposed guideline and clinical practice. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2016; 11:(7)489-493 https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2573

Kleinman Sween, J., Lowrie A., Kirmse J. M., Laughlin R. K., Wodziak B., Sampathkumar P. A quality improvement project to decrease utilization of multilumen peripherally inserted central catheters. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2021; 42:(2)222-224 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.411

Kuriyama A., Fowler K. E., Meddings J., Irie H., Kawakami D., Iwasaki H., Sakuraya M., Katayama K., Tokuda Y., Saint S. Reducing unnecessary urethral catheter use in Japanese intensive care units: A multicenter interventional study. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2019; 40:(11)1272-1274 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2019.258

Laan B. J., Maaskant J. M., Spijkerman I. J. B., Borgert M. J., Godfried M. H., Pasmooij B. C., Opmeer B. C., Vos M. C., Geerlings S. E. De-implementation strategy to reduce inappropriate use of intravenous and urinary catheters (RICAT): A multicentre, prospective, interrupted time-series and before and after study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020; 20:(7)864-872 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30709-1

Lim S., Gangoli G., Adams E., Hyde R., Broder M. S., Chang E., Reddy S. R., Tarbox M. H., Bentley T., Ovington L., Danker W. Increased clinical and economic burden associated with peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications: analysis of a US hospital discharge database. Inquiry. 2019; 56 https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958019875562

Marsh N., Larsen E. N., Takashima M., Kleidon T., Keogh S., Ullman A. J., Mihala G., Chopra V., Rickard C. M. Peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of risks from 11,830 catheters. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021; 124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104095

Marsh N., Webster J., Larson E., Cooke M., Mihala G., Rickard C. M. Observational study of peripheral intravenous catheter outcomes in adult hospitalized patients: A multivariable analysis of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018; 13:(2)83-89 https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2867

Massey D., Craswell A., Ray-Barruel G., Ullman A., Marsh N., Wallis M., Cooke M. e nursing students' perceptions of the current content and pedagogical approaches used in PIVC education. A qualitative, descriptive study. Nurse Education Today. 2020; 94 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104577

McHugh S. M., Corrigan M. A., Dimitrov B. D., Morris-Downes M., Fitzpatrick F., Cowman S., Tierney S., Hill A. D., Humphreys H. Role of patient awareness in prevention of peripheral vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2011; 32:(1)95-96 https://doi.org/10.1086/657630

Meddings J., Greene M. T., Ratz D., Ameling J., Fowler K. E., Rolle A. J., Hung L., Collier S., Saint S. Multistate programme to reduce catheter-associated infections in intensive care units with elevated infection rates. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2020; 29:(5)418-429 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009330

Meddings J., Rogers M. A., Krein S. L., Fakih M. G., Olmsted R. N., Saint S. Reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use and other strategies to prevent catheter associated urinary tract infection: an integrative review. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2014; 23:(4)277-289 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001774

Mena Lora, A. J., Ali M., Krill C., Spencer S., Takhsh E., Bleasdale S. C. Impact of a hospital-wide huddle on device utilisation and infection rates: a community hospital's journey to zero. Journal of Infection Prevention. 2020; 21:(6)228-233 https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177420939239

Mestre G., Berbel C., Tortajada P., Alarcia M., Coca R., Fernandez M. M., Gallemi G., Garcia I., Aguilar M. C., Rodriguez-Bano J., Martinez J. A. Successful multifaceted intervention aimed to reduce short peripheral venous catheter-related adverse events: a quasiexperimental cohort study. American Journal of Infection Control. 2013; 41:(6)520-526 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.07.014

Mitchell B. G., Northcote M., Cheng A. C., Fasugba O., Russo P. L., Rosebrock H. Reducing urinary catheter use using an electronic reminder system in hospitalized patients: A randomized stepped-wedge trial. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2019; 40:(4)427-431 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2019.31

Niederhauser A., Zullig S., Marschall J., Schweiger A., John G., Kuster S. P., Schwappach D. L. Change in staff perspectives on indwelling urinary catheter use after implementation of an intervention bundle in seven Swiss acute care hospitals: results of a before/after survey study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:(10) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028740

Nurses Specialized in Wound Ostomy and Continence Canada. Canadian standards of practice for nurses specialized in wound, ostomy and continence. 2021. http://nswoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NSWOCStandards_FINAL_HiRes.pdf

Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106269/pdf/cir257.pdf

Hospital slammed for sending man home with cannula still in his arm. 2019. https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/leicester-royal-infirmaryburton-cannula-3026157

Park M., Giap T. T. Patient and family engagement as a potential approach for improving patient safety: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2020; 76:(1)62-80 https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14227

Patel P. K., Gupta A., Vaughn V. M., Mann J. D., Ameling J. M., Meddings J. Review of strategies to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) in adult ICUs. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018; 13:(2)105-116 https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2856

Quinn M., Ameling J. M., Forman J., Krein S. L., Manojlovich M., Fowler K. E., King E. A., Meddings J. Persistent barriers to timely catheter removal identified from clinical observations and interviews. The Joint Committee Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2020; 46:(2)99-108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.10.004

Ray-Barruel G., Cooke M., Chopra V., Mitchell M., Rickard C. M. The I-DECIDED clinical decision making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation. BMJ Open. 2020; 10:(1) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035239

Ray-Barruel G., Cooke M., Mitchell M., Chopra V., Rickard C. M. Implementing the I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: protocol for an interrupted time-series study. BMJ Open. 2018a; 8:(6) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021290

Ray-Barruel G., Cooke M., Mitchell M., Chopra V., Rickard C. M. Reduction in ‘Just in Case’ cannula rates with a structured assessment and decision tool: An interrupted time-series study. Infection, Disease & Health. 2018b; 23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2018.09.038

Raynak A., Paquet F., Marchionni C., Lok V., Gauthier M., Frati F. Nurses' knowledge on routine care and maintenance of adult vascular access devices: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2020; 29:(21–22)3905-3921 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15419

Saint S., Trautner B. W., Fowler K. E., Colozzi J., Ratz D., Lescinskas E., Hollingsworth J. M., Krein S. L. A multicenter study of patient-reported infectious and noninfectious complications associated with indwelling urethral catheters. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2018; 178:(8)1078-1085 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2417

Saint S., Wiese J., Amory J. K., Bernstein M. L., Patel U. D., Zemencuk J. K., Bernstein S. J., Lipsky B. A., Hofer T. P. Are physicians aware of which of their patients have indwelling urinary catheters?. The American Journal of Medicine. 2000; 109:(6)476-480 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00531-3

Schreiber P. W., Sax H., Wolfensberger A., Clack L., Kuster S. P. The preventable proportion of healthcare-associated infections 2005-2016: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2018; 39:(11)1277-1295 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.183

Schweiger A., Kuster S. P., Maag J., Zullig S., Bertschy S., Bortolin E., John G., Sax H., Limacher A., Atkinson A., Schwappach D., Marschall J. Impact of an evidence-based intervention on urinary catheter utilization, associated process indicators, and infectious and non-infectious outcomes. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2020; 106:(2)364-371 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.07.002

Scott I. A., Elshaug A. G., Fox M. Low value care is a health hazard that calls for patient empowerment. Medical Journal of Australia. 2021; https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51168

Seale H., Chughtai A. A., Kaur R., Crowe P., Phillipson L., Novytska Y., Travaglia J. Ask, speak up, and be proactive: Empowering patient infection control to prevent health care acquired infections. American Journal of Infection Control. 2015; 43:(5)447-453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.01.007

Septimus E. J., Moody J. Prevention of device-related healthcare-associated infections. F1000Res. 2016; 5 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7493.1

Shadle H. N., Sabol V., Smith A., Stafford H., Thompson J. A., Bowers M. A bundle-based approach to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Nurse. 2021; 41:(2)62-71 https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2021934

Shah H., Bosch W., Thompson K. M., Hellinger W. C. Intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infection. Neurohospitalist. 2013; 3:(3)144-151 https://doi.org/10.1177/1941874413476043

Shum A., Wong K. S., Sankaran K., Goh M. L. Securement of the indwelling urinary catheter for adult patients: a best practice implementation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2017; 15:(1)3-12 https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000084

Snyder R. L., White K. A., Glowicz J. B., Novosad S. A., Soda E. A., Hsu S., Kuhar D. T., Cochran R. L. Gaps in infection prevention practices for catheter-associated urinary tract infections and central line-associated bloodstream infections as identified by the Targeted Assessment for Prevention Strategy. American Journal of Infection Control. 2021; 49:(7)874-878 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.014

Takashima M., Schults J., Mihala G., Corley A., Ullman A. Complication and failures of central vascular access device in adult critical care settings. Critical Care Medicine. 2018; 46:(12)1998-2009 https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003370

Tarrago R., Nowak J. E., Leonard C. S., Payne N. R. Reductions in invasive device use and care costs after institution of a daily safety checklist in a pediatric critical care unit. The Joint Committee Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2014; 40:(6)270-278 https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(14)40036-9

Trautner B. W., Saint S., Fowler K. E., Van J., Rosen T., Colozzi J., Chopra V., Lescinskas E., Krein S. L. What do patients say about their experience with urinary catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters?. American Journal of Infection Control. 2019; 47:(9)1130-1134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.05.031

Vandenhouten C. L., Owens A. K., Hunter M. R., Raynak A. Peripheral intravenous education in North American nursing schools: A call to action. Journal of Nursing Education. 2020; 59:(9)493-500 https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20200817-03

Wald-Dickler N., Holtom P. D., Phillips M. C., Centor R. M., Lee R. A., Baden R., Spellberg B. Oral is the new IV – challenging decades of blood and bone infection dogma: A systematic review. American Journal of Medicine. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.10.007

Walz J. M., Ellison R. T., Mack D. A., Flaherty H. M., McIlwaine J. K., Whyte K. G., Landry K. E., Baker S. P., Heard S. O. The bundle ‘plus’: The effect of a multidisciplinary team approach to eradicate central line-associated bloodstream infections. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2015; 120:(4)868-876 https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a8b01b

World Health Organization. Patient safety. 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/patient-safety

Xiong Z., Chen H. Interventions to reduce unnecessary central venous catheter use to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in adults: A systematic review. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2018; 39:(12)1442-1448 https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.250

Yagnik L., Graves A., Thong K. Plastic in patient study: Prospective audit of adherence to peripheral intravenous cannula monitoring and documentation guidelines, with the aim of reducing future rates of intravenous cannula related complications. American Journal of Infection Control. 2017; 45:(1)34-38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.09.008

Yu S., Marshall A. P., Li J., Lin F. Interventions and strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections with short-term indwelling urinary catheters in hospitalized patients: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2020; 26:(3) https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12834

Zingg W., Pittet D. Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2009; 34:S38-42 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(09)70565-5

I-DECIDED®—a decision tool for assessment and management of invasive devices in the hospital setting

21 April 2022
Volume 31 · Issue 8

Abstract

Indwelling medical devices, including vascular access and urinary catheters, pose a risk for infection, and therefore daily assessment and consideration of their continued need is a patient safety priority. The I-DECIDED® device assessment and decision tool is an evidence-based checklist, designed to improve the assessment, care and timely removal of invasive devices in acute hospitalized patients. This paper explains each step of the tool, with rationale for inclusion.

Approximately 420 million patients annually are admitted to hospital (World Health Organization, 2019). A US prevalence study identified 91% of hospitalized adults had at least one invasive device, such as central venous access device (CVAD), peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC), or indwelling urethral catheter (IUC), with many patients requiring multiple devices concurrently (Chenetal, 2021). Despite the high prevalence of devices, this practice is not risk-free. Invasive devices breach the normal protective mechanisms of the body (eg skin, mucous membranes) and pose a risk for introduction of microorganisms, potentially leading to local or bloodstream infection (Schreiber et al, 2018). Furthermore, many devices are left in when no longer medically indicated, placing patients at risk of healthcare-associated complications and infection, increased morbidity and mortality, extended hospital stay and financial burden for the healthcare system, and personal and economic consequences for the patient (Becerra et al, 2016; Meddings et al, 2014; Patel et al, 2018; Xiong and Chen, 2018).

Daily assessment of invasive devices for continued need and early detection of complications enhances patient safety. Implementation studies of multimodal bundles, including daily prompts of device necessity, have achieved reduction in utilization of IUCs (Gazarin et al, 2020; Giles et al, 2020; Kuriyama et al, 2019; Niederhauser et al, 2019;Schweiger et al, 2020), CVADs (Kara et al, 2016; Kleinman Sween et al, 2021; Walz et al, 2015; Xiong and Chen, 2018), CVADs and IUCs (Chandramohan et al, 2018; Kaminski et al, 2021; Mena Lora et al, 2020), IUCs and PIVCs (Laan et al, 2020), and PIVCs (Egerton-Warburton et al, 2019; Mestre et al, 2013; Yagnik et al, 2017). Interventions that employ education, daily reminders, and automated stop-orders demonstrate greater clinician awareness of device use and prompt removal of unnecessary devices, with subsequent reductions in complications and infections (Kleinman Sweenetal, 2021; Meddings et al, 2020; Mitchell et al, 2019; Yu et al, 2020), but continued vigilance is crucial (Chandramohan et al, 2018).

As nurses provide the bulk of device assessment and care, they are expected to identify when complications arise, take appropriate action, and notify medical staff accordingly. However, many nurses receive little training in device assessment other than in the undergraduate nursing curriculum, and knowledge and skills can vary among clinicians (Massey et al, 2020; Vandenhouten et al, 2020). A recent scoping review noted significant gaps in nurses' knowledge on the care and maintenance of vascular access devices and recommended improved educational preparation and workplace training (Raynak et al, 2020).

I-DECIDED®

TheI-DECIDED® device assessment and decision tool is an evidence-based checklist (see Figure 1). This tool packages international clinical guidelines for invasive devices into a mnemonic algorithm for point-of-care decision-making (Ray-Barruel et al, 2018a). Taking a step-by-step approach, I-DECIDED® prompts clinicians to assess key components of device care and promotes accountability for actions based on the assessment. A clinimetric study concluded that I-DECIDED® was valid and reliable for PIVC assessment and decision-making in medical-surgical settings (mean content validity 0.91 among experts and 0.93 among clinicians; inter-rater reliability 87.1% from 34 paired assessments) (Ray-Barruel et al, 2020). Pilot study results showed a 4.4% reduction in idle catheters (not in use or no plans for use within 24 hours) and increased nurses' awareness of the importance of prompt removal (Ray-Barruel et al, 2018b).

Figure 1. The I-DECIDED® tool

In addition to providing a checklist for invasive devices assessment each shift, I-DECIDED® can be used for device education purposes. For instance, the tool has been adapted as a checklist for nursing management of peripherally inserted central catheters and included in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium PICC toolkit (https://mi-hms.org/sites/default/files/I-DECIDED%20PICC.pdf). In my hospital, we are now teaching all nurses to apply the principles of I-DECIDED® to every short-term invasive device: Every day, every patient, every device: Is it needed? Is it working? Any complications? Can it come out? We are currently updating our hospital infection prevention and invasive devices policies to reflect this.

The following section explains the steps of the I-DECIDED® tool, with supporting rationale, and implications for clinical practice.

1. IDENTIFY if the patient has a device

Device assessment begins with identifying the presence of all devices every shift. If the device is not documented in the patient's chart, the healthcare provider should ask the patient or their family/carer if they have any catheters or lines in situ. Prior research has identified clinicians may lack awareness of indwelling devices among their own patients, particularly when devices are tucked under the patient's sleeves or bedding (Chopra et al, 2014; Quinn et al, 2020; Saint et al, 2000). Peripheral intravenous catheters being left in inadvertently after patient discharge have also been reported (Allnurses.com, 2018; Bingham, 2019; Gerwing, 2021; Orton, 2019; Render, 2012) putting patients at risk of bloodstream infection and the hospital at risk of negligence.

2. DOES the patient need this device?

Many devices are not promptly removed when no longer needed, with reports that up to 50% of PIVCs (Becerra et al, 2016), 32% of CVADs (Kara et al, 2016), and between 31%-45% of IUCs (Corral-Gudino et al, 2019; Kuriyamaet al, 2019; Laan et al, 2020) are left in place without medical indication, increasing risk of infection. Reasons for leaving devices in situ unnecessarily include inaccurate documentation; perceptions of patient comfort; lack of priority for device removal; lack of agreement on indications for removal; and confusion regarding staff authority to remove unneeded devices (Bourgault et al, 2021; Castro-Sanchezet al, 2014; Quinn et al, 2020). The clinical need for a device should be reassessed daily, and it should be removed when no longer required (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021; Gould et al, 2010; O'Grady et al, 2011).

Avoiding device insertion in the first place is often a reasonable and prudent strategy. For instance, if a patient can take oral medications and fluids, they may not need a vascular access device (Egerton-Warburton et al, 2019; Wald-Dickler et al, 2021).

Appropriate indications for an IUC include: acute urinary retention or bladder outlet obstruction; accurate urine measurement in critically ill patients; some surgical procedures; open sacral or perineal wounds in incontinent patients; prolonged immobilization, such as spinal or pelvic fractures; and end of life comfort care (Gould et al, 2010). An IUC inserted for a surgical procedure should be removed ‘as soon as possible postoperatively (preferably within 24 hours, unless there are appropriate indications for continued use)’ (Gould et al, 2010:10). Urinary incontinence is not an appropriate reason for an IUC; alternatives are available and seeking continence specialist support and advice is strongly recommended (Nurses Specialized in Wound Ostomy and Continence Canada, 2021).

3. EFFECTIVE function?

The patient's nurse should assess the function and patency of indwelling devices each shift. Intravascular devices should be checked for blood return and flushed with 3 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride in a 10 mL syringe (Gorski et al, 2021). Resistance or failure to flush indicates that the catheter might be kinked or blocked or could have migrated out of the vessel (Goossens, 2015).

Urinary catheters should be free-flowing and not kinked or obstructed, with the drainage bag positioned below the level of the bladder and off the loor (Gould et al, 2010). Troubleshoot any problems as per hospital policy and remove the device if patency cannot be re-established. Resite as required.

4. COMPLICATION-free?

Each shift, the nurse should assess for device complications, prompting early identification and correction of issues, and if necessary, removal and insertion of a new device. Unfortunately, device-associated complications are common; up to two-thirds of PIVCs (Marsh et al, 2021; Marsh et al, 2018) and one-fourth of CVADs (Takashima et al, 2018) cease to function before treatment is complete, resulting in painful and time-consuming additional insertion procedures, which also increases hospital costs (Lim et al, 2019).

The Canadian Vascular Access and Infusion Therapy Guidelines recommend that if a peripherally administered non-vesicant solution is infusing, the nurse should check the insertion site every four hours; if the patient is critically ill or otherwise unable to self-report pain, hourly site checks are required; and if a vesicant infusion is in progress, the PIVC insertion site should be checked at least every 30 minutes (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019). Phlebitis scores are often used to assess the PIVC insertion site for pain/tenderness, warmth, redness, swelling, hardness or palpable cord (indicating thrombosis/clot), or purulence (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). If the insertion site develops signs of phlebitis or infiltration, or if the device becomes dislodged, it should be removed (Gorski et al, 2021). Follow local hospital policy for troubleshooting blocked CVADs.

Complications associated with IUCs may include mechanical trauma, hematuria, urethral stricture, and urinary tract infection (Schweiger et al, 2020). In one study, 57% of patients had IUC complications, and many had persistent discomfort even after catheter removal (Saint et al, 2018). Therefore, the nurse should be aware of possible complications and troubleshoot to ensure the urinary drainage bag is unobstructed, as above. If obstruction occurs, the IUC should be changed (Gould et al, 2010).

5. INFECTION prevention and awareness

Unfortunately, healthcare providers may not always take stringent infection prevention measures when handling invasive devices (Snyder et al, 2021). Therefore, I-DECIDED® contains a prompt for infection prevention and awareness. Unnecessary manipulation of invasive lines should be minimized, where possible (Septimus and Moody, 2016). Rigorous hand hygiene before and aseptic non-touch technique during the connecting and disconnecting of lines and devices are essential to prevent infection (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). Needle-free connectors attached to vascular access devices must be scrubbed with a compatible disinfectant (eg, chlorhexidine in alcohol or 70% alcohol wipes) for at least 5–15 seconds and allowed to dry thoroughly before each access, including between multiple accesses (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). If disinfectant caps are in use, they must be discarded once removed. If an administration set or urinary catheter bag is accidentally disconnected from the indwelling device, it must be discarded, with a new sterile line prepared (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021).

If the patient has signs of systemic infection (including low or high temperature, elevated heart rate, elevated respiratory rate, low or high white blood cell count), any invasive device is a possible cause (Shah et al, 2013). Intravascular catheter insertion sites should be examined for inflammation or purulence, and urine should be assessed for cloudiness or odour. If no obvious source of infection is detected, diagnostic investigations (blood and/or urine samples) should be undertaken and device removal should be considered (Shah et al, 2013).

6. DRESSING and securement

Routine care for any invasive device includes cleaning the site, as per hospital policy, and ensuring appropriate securement to prevent dislodgement and the need for repeated insertions. Vascular access device insertion sites require a clean, dry, and occlusive sterile dressing to protect the site and prevent microbial entry (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). Each shift, the nurse should inspect all dressings to ensure hygiene and integrity are maintained. If the dressing becomes loose or moist, it must be removed and replaced, and skin integrity should be assessed during the dressing change (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). A poorly secured vascular access device encourages infection, as catheter movement in the vein can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream (Corley et al, 2019). The integrity of the securement device should also be assessed routinely and replaced if no longer effective (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019).

Urethral hygiene is imperative, and the patient with an IUC should be instructed to cleanse the perineal area during daily bathing or showering (Gould et al, 2010). Securement of an IUC can prevent urethral trauma and erosion, as well as inadvertent removal (Shum et al, 2017).

7. EVALUATE and EDUCATE

The nurse should evaluate the patient's understanding of the reason for each device and prescribed therapy (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). Engaging the patient and family, where possible, has a beneficial effect on patient safety by empowering them to voice their concerns and prompt action to address device complications and remove redundant devices (Scott et al, 2021; Seale et al, 2015). Explanations and education should be provided according to the patient's age, developmental and cognitive level, health literacy, readiness to learn, cultural influences, and language preferences (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019).

Previous studies have identified that patients do not receive adequate information and education about their indwelling devices (Cooke et al, 2018; Laan et al, 2020; Seale et al, 2015), but most would prefer to be informed and given the opportunity to participate in their own care (Park and Giap, 2020). A prevalence study in Ireland found that the patient's lack of awareness of the reason for their PIVC was significantly associated with the cannula being redundant (McHugh et al, 2011). A US study found patients' perceptions of their indwelling device (IUC or CVAD) were largely negative, due to catheter malfunction, pain or discomfort, irritation, interference with activities of daily living, or provider error (Trautner et al, 2019).

8. DOCUMENT your decision

At the completion of the assessment, the nurse decides (in consultation with the treating team and patient, as relevant) to continue, troubleshoot, or remove the device. The device assessment and plan should be documented in the patient's medical record. Documentation should include, at a minimum: insertion date and time; assessment and action each shift; and, removal date and time (Canadian Vascular Access Association, 2019; Gorski et al, 2021). The continued need for the device should also be recorded. If the device is not documented, this increases the likelihood that it will be forgotten, increasing the risk of complications and infection (Zingg and Pittet, 2009). In a global prevalence study, documentation of PIVC insertion was missing in 49% of charts and daily assessment was not recorded in 36% of patient records (Alexandrou et al, 2018). Including device checklists and templates in electronic records has demonstrated marked improvements in prompt vascular access and urinary catheter removal in several studies (Aufricht et al, 2019; Shadle et al, 2021; Tarrago et al, 2014). Documentation of device decisions should be incorporated into electronic medical records, with automated stop orders, as appropriate (Yuetal, 2020).

Limitations

To date, the I-DECIDED® tool has only been validated and tested for patients with PIVCs in the acute adult hospital setting in Australia. Further trials are invited to evaluate the impact of the tool for other invasive devices, in other populations and settings.

Conclusion

Nurses caring for patients with indwelling devices must be aware of the associated patient safety and infection risks. The I-DECIDED® tool packages the clinical practice guidelines into an evidence-based checklist to ensure clinicians address the principles of device assessment and care. In pilot research, implementation of the tool increased nurses' awareness of PIVCs and prompted timely removal of unneeded cannulas in adult medical and surgical patients. Further trials are needed to assess the efficacy for improving device care for other invasive devices and diverse populations and settings. Fewer redundant devices would have positive consequences for hospital patients, healthcare providers, and healthcare systems.

I-DECIDED® is a registered trademark of Griffith University. It may be freely downloaded from the AVATAR® website (https://www.avatargroup.org.au/i-decided.html) and used for non-profit clinical and education purposes. Permission to use the tool for commercial purposes must be obtained in writing from Griffith University.