Difficult intravenous access tool in patients receiving peripheral chemotherapy: A pilot-validation study

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

“…30 Seven studies had "diffi cult" or "diffi culty" in their title as a term to use to describe insertion failure. 3,19,[24][25][26][27]30 One study was titled exclusively for the nursing profession, 20 5 studies were reported in medical journals, 3,24,26,29,30 and 6 were reported in nursing journals, [19][20][21][22]25,27 with the remainder published in a vascular access journal. 23,28 General Characteristics of Included Studies…”

“…One TRA which was registered as a clinical trial 24 involved a standardized reporting tool as is recommended by the EQUATOR Network. 18 Nine of the 13 papers reported that TRA components were chosen based on identifi ed predictors of successful insertion from observational data 3,19,[23][24][25][26][27][28]30 , with 5 papers using multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors. 3,23,24,26,2 At least 4330 insertion attempts on patients were reported.…”

“…We identifi ed 5 papers from the ED setting 3,23,26,29,30 and 5 studies specifi c to cancer settings. [19][20][21][22]28 Two ED papers identifi ed clinical predictors of insertion diffi culty, with 1 identifying an existing medical diagnosis (such as sickle cell disease, diabetes, or intravenous drug abuse) and the other reporting a pragmatic patient self-report of diffi culty. 26,30 Three studies focused on patient-exclusive variables (such as vein characteristics) 19,21,28 and some with a combined clinician and patient focus.…”

“…[19][20][21][22]28 Two ED papers identifi ed clinical predictors of insertion diffi culty, with 1 identifying an existing medical diagnosis (such as sickle cell disease, diabetes, or intravenous drug abuse) and the other reporting a pragmatic patient self-report of diffi culty. 26,30 Three studies focused on patient-exclusive variables (such as vein characteristics) 19,21,28 and some with a combined clinician and patient focus. 3,[23][24][25]27,30 Relatively few studies reported interobserver measurements to describe the reliability of clinical assessments made.…”

“…3,[23][24][25]27,30 Relatively few studies reported interobserver measurements to describe the reliability of clinical assessments made. 3,19,21,28 Webster et al in Australia assessed interrater reliability of a vein assessment tool (VAT) and found high agreement (kappa 0.83 for medical imaging nurses and 0.93 for oncology nurses). 21 Wells compared reliability with Altman's K scores obtained from a different VAT when compared with the Deciding on Intravenous Access tool and found good agreement.…”