Living with a peripherally inserted central catheter: the perspective of cancer outpatients—a qualitative study

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to describe the experience of using a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in cancer sufferers receiving outpatient treatment.MethodsA qualitative, phenomenological study was performed. Purposeful sampling methods were used. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews and researcher field notes. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. The study was conducted following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.ResultsEighteen patients (61% women, mean age 58 years) participated. They spent a mean duration of 155 days with the line in place. Two themes were identified with different subgroups. The theme “Living with a PICC line,” including the subthemes “Benefits” and “Disadvantages,” displays how the implantation is experienced by patients in a dichotomous manner. This highlighted both the beneficial and negative aspects of the implantation. The second theme was “Adapting to life with the catheter” and comprised three subthemes: “Advantages,” “Lifestyle modifications,” and “Overall assessment of the peripherally inserted central catheter,” which shows how patients gradually accept the catheter by adapting their lifestyle.ConclusionsOver time, most patients considered having a PICC line to be a positive experience that they would recommend to other patients, as they found that it did not alter their quality of life. These results can be applied in Oncology Units for developing specific protocols for patients.

Patient experiences with peripherally inserted venous catheters— A cross‐sectional, multicentre study in Norway

“…Nevertheless, these studies focus on cancer patients. The comments added some further information that support earlier research indicating patient satisfaction with their PICC (Edström et al, ; Nicholson & Davies, ; Paras‐Bravo et al, ); patients appreciated not having to insert new catheters every 2–3 days and that the PICC/Midline allowed them to stay at home rather than in hospital. Our findings also support that both patients and healthcare personnel need good information about the catheter (Harrold et al, ; Krein et al, ).…”

“…All items were rated far below the “top score.” Nevertheless, few respondents would have preferred an ordinary peripheral venous catheter instead. The disadvantages with having a PICC from the patients perspective are supported by several other studies (Edström et al, ; Harrold, Martin, & Scarlett, ; Oakley et al, ; Paras‐Bravo, Paz‐Zulueta, & Santibanez, ; Park et al, ). Nevertheless, these studies focus on cancer patients.…”

“…Our findings also support that both patients and healthcare personnel need good information about the catheter (Harrold et al, ; Krein et al, ). Despite growing use, little is known about how such catheters influence quality of life and activities of daily living (Mayer, 2017; Paras‐Bravo et al, ; Sharp et al, ).…”

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT) with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in Patients with Periprosthetic Joint Infection

“…Overall, PICC lines are a safe access route for outpatients and associated with a low rate of severe adverse events [17]. PICC lines are already used in an outpatient basis for the treatment of cancer patients or patients with cystic fibrosis [18,19]. No studies on the home use of PICC lines in patients with periprosthetic infection are currently available in the literature.…”

Vascular access in cancer patients – clinical implications

“…127 Paràs-Bravo et al conducted a qualitative study interviewing 18 patients with cancer. 128 They concluded that the benefits of PICCs include reduction in number of venepunctures, rapid insertion and The only RCTs addressing the cost of vascular access devices in patients with cancer, questioned the apparently lower cost of PICC. 130 Comparing costs of access devices between different healthcare systems can be challenging.…”