The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients

Kathryn Burnett, P. A. McCarron, Michael Scott, Pat McKee, Geraldine Conlon-Bingham, David Farren, Alan Tate, Stuart Murray, Eoin Dunne, Liam Callaghan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral Venous Catheters (PVC) are an essential component in modern healthcare and their inclusion into a Clinical Procedure Pack has been identified as an area of healthcare where an enhancement in design and implementation could improve practitioner performance and associated patient outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of two interventions; i. procedural kits with an enhanced training programme ii. a specific feedback mechanism on the rates of inappropriate removal of PVCs within Antrim Area Hospital. Methods: A time series design, using retrospective and prospective data was used. The study consisted of three phases. Phase A aimed to establish existing PVC adverse event rates. Phase B included the introduction and assessment of the first intervention, a PVC procedural kit and associated training package, to specific clinical areas. Phase C involved the introduction and assessment of the second intervention, a performance feedback mechanism. Results: Analysis of data showed that the difference of mean PVC clinical adverse event rate between Phase A 12.84% (95% CI: 10.86 – 15.03) and Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) was improved (p=0.008). Similarly, the PVC clinical adverse event rate of Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) and Phase C of 5.94% (95% CI: 4.78 – 7.30), was improved (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, the study demonstrated the benefit of introducing a PVC procedural kit with an enhanced training programme and a specific feedback mechanism to significantly reduce clinical adverse events, compared to the previous standard practice.
LanguageEnglish
Article number000524
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Pharmacy and Pharmacological Research
Volume1
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Catheters
Delivery of Health Care
Polyvinyl Chloride
Education

Keywords

  • PVC
  • Adverse events
  • Procedural packs
  • Clinical outcomes

Cite this

Burnett, Kathryn ; McCarron, P. A. ; Scott, Michael ; McKee, Pat ; Conlon-Bingham, Geraldine ; Farren, David ; Tate, Alan ; Murray, Stuart ; Dunne, Eoin ; Callaghan, Liam. / The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients. 2019 ; Vol. 1, No. 5.
@article{467621b228664920949a3e461d47b619,
title = "The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients",
abstract = "Introduction: Peripheral Venous Catheters (PVC) are an essential component in modern healthcare and their inclusion into a Clinical Procedure Pack has been identified as an area of healthcare where an enhancement in design and implementation could improve practitioner performance and associated patient outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of two interventions; i. procedural kits with an enhanced training programme ii. a specific feedback mechanism on the rates of inappropriate removal of PVCs within Antrim Area Hospital. Methods: A time series design, using retrospective and prospective data was used. The study consisted of three phases. Phase A aimed to establish existing PVC adverse event rates. Phase B included the introduction and assessment of the first intervention, a PVC procedural kit and associated training package, to specific clinical areas. Phase C involved the introduction and assessment of the second intervention, a performance feedback mechanism. Results: Analysis of data showed that the difference of mean PVC clinical adverse event rate between Phase A 12.84{\%} (95{\%} CI: 10.86 – 15.03) and Phase B of 9.48{\%} (95{\%} CI: 8.10 – 11.00) was improved (p=0.008). Similarly, the PVC clinical adverse event rate of Phase B of 9.48{\%} (95{\%} CI: 8.10 – 11.00) and Phase C of 5.94{\%} (95{\%} CI: 4.78 – 7.30), was improved (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, the study demonstrated the benefit of introducing a PVC procedural kit with an enhanced training programme and a specific feedback mechanism to significantly reduce clinical adverse events, compared to the previous standard practice.",
keywords = "PVC, Adverse events, Procedural packs, Clinical outcomes",
author = "Kathryn Burnett and McCarron, {P. A.} and Michael Scott and Pat McKee and Geraldine Conlon-Bingham and David Farren and Alan Tate and Stuart Murray and Eoin Dunne and Liam Callaghan",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "17",
doi = "10.33552/APPR.2019.01.000524",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
number = "5",

}

Burnett, K, McCarron, PA, Scott, M, McKee, P, Conlon-Bingham, G, Farren, D, Tate, A, Murray, S, Dunne, E & Callaghan, L 2019, 'The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients', vol. 1, no. 5, 000524. https://doi.org/10.33552/APPR.2019.01.000524

The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients. / Burnett, Kathryn; McCarron, P. A.; Scott, Michael; McKee, Pat; Conlon-Bingham, Geraldine; Farren, David; Tate, Alan; Murray, Stuart; Dunne, Eoin; Callaghan, Liam.

Vol. 1, No. 5, 000524, 17.07.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Impact of Peripheral Venous Catheter Procedural Kits on Improving Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients

AU - Burnett, Kathryn

AU - McCarron, P. A.

AU - Scott, Michael

AU - McKee, Pat

AU - Conlon-Bingham, Geraldine

AU - Farren, David

AU - Tate, Alan

AU - Murray, Stuart

AU - Dunne, Eoin

AU - Callaghan, Liam

PY - 2019/7/17

Y1 - 2019/7/17

N2 - Introduction: Peripheral Venous Catheters (PVC) are an essential component in modern healthcare and their inclusion into a Clinical Procedure Pack has been identified as an area of healthcare where an enhancement in design and implementation could improve practitioner performance and associated patient outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of two interventions; i. procedural kits with an enhanced training programme ii. a specific feedback mechanism on the rates of inappropriate removal of PVCs within Antrim Area Hospital. Methods: A time series design, using retrospective and prospective data was used. The study consisted of three phases. Phase A aimed to establish existing PVC adverse event rates. Phase B included the introduction and assessment of the first intervention, a PVC procedural kit and associated training package, to specific clinical areas. Phase C involved the introduction and assessment of the second intervention, a performance feedback mechanism. Results: Analysis of data showed that the difference of mean PVC clinical adverse event rate between Phase A 12.84% (95% CI: 10.86 – 15.03) and Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) was improved (p=0.008). Similarly, the PVC clinical adverse event rate of Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) and Phase C of 5.94% (95% CI: 4.78 – 7.30), was improved (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, the study demonstrated the benefit of introducing a PVC procedural kit with an enhanced training programme and a specific feedback mechanism to significantly reduce clinical adverse events, compared to the previous standard practice.

AB - Introduction: Peripheral Venous Catheters (PVC) are an essential component in modern healthcare and their inclusion into a Clinical Procedure Pack has been identified as an area of healthcare where an enhancement in design and implementation could improve practitioner performance and associated patient outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of two interventions; i. procedural kits with an enhanced training programme ii. a specific feedback mechanism on the rates of inappropriate removal of PVCs within Antrim Area Hospital. Methods: A time series design, using retrospective and prospective data was used. The study consisted of three phases. Phase A aimed to establish existing PVC adverse event rates. Phase B included the introduction and assessment of the first intervention, a PVC procedural kit and associated training package, to specific clinical areas. Phase C involved the introduction and assessment of the second intervention, a performance feedback mechanism. Results: Analysis of data showed that the difference of mean PVC clinical adverse event rate between Phase A 12.84% (95% CI: 10.86 – 15.03) and Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) was improved (p=0.008). Similarly, the PVC clinical adverse event rate of Phase B of 9.48% (95% CI: 8.10 – 11.00) and Phase C of 5.94% (95% CI: 4.78 – 7.30), was improved (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, the study demonstrated the benefit of introducing a PVC procedural kit with an enhanced training programme and a specific feedback mechanism to significantly reduce clinical adverse events, compared to the previous standard practice.

KW - PVC

KW - Adverse events

KW - Procedural packs

KW - Clinical outcomes

U2 - 10.33552/APPR.2019.01.000524

DO - 10.33552/APPR.2019.01.000524

M3 - Article

VL - 1

IS - 5

M1 - 000524

ER -