Bahl Amit, Mielke Nicholas, Xing Yuying, DiLoreto Emily, Zimmerman Todd, Gibson S Matthew
Department of Emergency Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA.
J Vasc Access. 2025 Jan;26(1):293-305. doi: 10.1177/11297298231219776. Epub 2024 Jan 5.
Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) patients are known to have disproportionately poorer vascular access outcomes. The impact of education and training on vascular access outcomes in this vulnerable population is unclear. We aim to demonstrate the success of a program (Operation (O) STICK) on improving vascular access outcomes in DIVA patients.
This was a quasi-experimental pre-post interventional study conducted at a tertiary care emergency department (ED) with 120,000 annual visits and 1100 hospital beds. Adult patients requiring an ultrasound-guided (US) peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) in the ED were eligible participants. Traditional (palpation method) insertions were excluded. Using multivariable linear regression and inverse probability weighted (IPW) linear regression, the standard group inclusive of PIVCs inserted by staff without formalized OSTICK training were compared to the interventional group inclusive of PIVCs inserted by staff with training and competency in the OSTICK training model.
Data were collected over two time intervals: 4/1/21-9/30/21 (pre; non-OSTICK) and 10/1/22-3/31/23 (post; OSTICK). 2375 DIVA patients included 1035 (43.6%) non-OSTICK and 1340 (56.4%) OSTICK PIVCs. Overall, OSTICK PIVCs had a higher proportion of upper arm or forearm placements (94.6% vs 57.4%; < 0.001), 20 gauge catheters (97.1% vs 92.3%; < 0.001), and left-sided placements (54.4% vs 43.5%; < 0.001). 62.7% of OSTICK PIVCs were placed by ED technicians, compared to 25.5% in the non-OSTICK group ( < 0.001). OSTICK PIVCs were placed on the first attempt 86.2% of the time and by the second attempt 95.4% of the time. In a subanalysis of 1343 hospitalized patients (689 (51.3%) OSTICK vs 654 (48.7%) non-OSTICK), OSTICK PIVCs survived for a median of 92% of the patient's hospital length of stay, compared to non-OSTICK PIVCs at 74% ( < 0.001).
Formalized vascular access training in the ED leads to improved adherence to best practices for PIVC insertion, high success of cannulation with minimal attempts, and improved PIVC functionality during hospitalization for DIVA patients. Importantly, these outcomes are sustainable as they were captured 12 months after implementation of the program.
已知静脉穿刺困难(DIVA)患者的血管通路结局明显较差。教育和培训对这一弱势群体血管通路结局的影响尚不清楚。我们旨在证明一个项目(“O”型穿刺行动)在改善DIVA患者血管通路结局方面的成功。
这是一项在一家三级护理急诊科进行的准实验性前后对照干预研究,该急诊科年就诊量为120000人次,有1100张病床。在急诊科需要超声引导下外周静脉导管(PIVC)的成年患者为合格参与者。排除传统(触诊法)穿刺。使用多变量线性回归和逆概率加权(IPW)线性回归,将包括未接受“O”型穿刺行动正式培训的工作人员插入的PIVC的标准组与包括接受“O”型穿刺行动培训且具备相应能力的工作人员插入的PIVC的干预组进行比较。
在两个时间段收集数据:2021年4月1日至9月30日(前期;非“O”型穿刺行动)和2022年10月1日至2023年3月31日(后期;“O”型穿刺行动)。2375例DIVA患者包括1035例(43.6%)非“O”型穿刺行动PIVC和1340例(56.4%)“O”型穿刺行动PIVC。总体而言,“O”型穿刺行动PIVC在上臂或前臂置管的比例更高(94.6%对57.4%;P<0.001),20号导管的比例更高(97.1%对92.3%;P<0.001),左侧置管的比例更高(54.4%对43.5%;P<0.001)。62.7%的“O”型穿刺行动PIVC由急诊科技术人员置管,而非“O”型穿刺行动组为25.5%(P<0.001)。“O”型穿刺行动PIVC首次尝试置管成功的比例为86.2%,第二次尝试置管成功的比例为95.4%。在对1343例住院患者的亚分析中(689例(51.3%)“O”型穿刺行动对654例(48.7%)非“O”型穿刺行动),“O”型穿刺行动PIVC在患者住院期间存活的中位数为92%,而非“O”型穿刺行动PIVC为74%(P<0.001)。
急诊科的正规血管通路培训可提高PIVC穿刺遵循最佳实践的程度,以最少的尝试获得高穿刺成功率,并改善DIVA患者住院期间PIVC的功能。重要的是,这些结果是可持续的,因为它们是在该项目实施12个月后获得的。