First do no harm: In fact, first do nothing, at least not a cannula

Egerton-Warburton, Diana; Ieraci, Sue

doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12109

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Level IV : three cross‐sectional analyses N/A : one qualitative study, four letters‐to‐the‐editor, two letters‐of‐response and one author perspective …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were three approaches; first, no explicit description was provided. Instead, authors relied on what is conventionally understood by the words ‘idle’ or ‘unused’ . Second, authors defined ‘used’ for a PIVC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 4017 articles were reduced to a final total of 21 (Fig. , Table , Appendix S2) . Relevant observational, interventional and qualitative studies were included, as well as letters‐to‐the‐editor or author perspectives.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review article: Idle ‘just‐in‐case’ peripheral intravenous cannulas in the emergency department: Is something wrong?

Gledstone-Brown

McHugh

2017

Emerg Medicine Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) placement is often an essential emergency medicine precursor to lifesaving treatment, but it is not harmless. Patients frequently and without proper consideration of the consequences receive a 'just-in-case' PIVCs as part of their assessment and admission, which, in a not insignificant number of patients, remains unused or idle in situ. We reviewed the literature and performed a thematic analysis of data collated from 21 articles published in the past 24 years regarding redundant PIVCs. The following five common themes emerged: heterogeneous prevalence data on post-insertion PIVC usage, preventable intravascular complications, financial burden, loss of time and a culture of over-investigating. The prevalence of PIVC insertions and idle PIVCs was heterogeneous among these publications; the median ED idle PIVC prevalence value was 32.4%. This practice is associated with compromised patient safety, squandered finances and misdirected practitioner time. Cultures of convenience and shortfalls in PIVC-related education facilitate the prevalence of idle PIVCs.

show abstract

“… Level IV : three cross‐sectional analyses N/A : one qualitative study, four letters‐to‐the‐editor, two letters‐of‐response and one author perspective …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review article: Idle ‘just‐in‐case’ peripheral intravenous cannulas in the emergency department: Is something wrong?

Gledstone-Brown

McHugh

2017

Emerg Medicine Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has suggested that 90% of unused PIVC were ‘used’ for taking blood for testing . Education revolved around encouraging clinicians to be 80% certain that the PIVC would be used before insertion . Education also emphasised when a precautionary PIVC may be appropriate, based on our previous research (Table ) .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is no validated acceptable rate of PIVC use. A small clinician survey using a modified Delphi technique to determine when a PIVC was indicated suggested a threshold of ‘80% or more’ likely to be used . In some high‐risk conditions it may be appropriate to insert a precautionary PIVC; however, there has been no published research on the definition of ‘appropriate’ but unused PIVC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%