No abstract

No abstract

Aim and objective: To explore and establish the language, clinical opinions and workplace culture around neonatal skin injury nomenclature. Specifically, what nomenclature is used to describe, define, identity and communicate neonatal skin injuries including (a) terms, (b) locations, (c) associated risks and (d) mechanical forces. Background: Skin injuries are affirmed or denied based on visual assessment with findings reported by language rather than measurements. However, if language or nomenclature is ambiguous, assessments could be misinterpreted effecting healthcare delivery. Design: Qualitative enquiry including applied discourse analysis and betweenmethod triangulation, within a larger exploratory mixed-methods study. Methods: Data were collected over two years from four sources: literature, documents, interviews/focus groups and free text injury assessments. Data analysis included content analysis, selective coding and thematic analysis. The collective data were further explored using discourse analysis and triangulation to achieve collective conclusions about opinions, emotions, feelings, perceptions and workplace cultures. The COREQ checklist provided structure for the reporting of study methods, analysis and findings. Results: A total of 427 data points were collected from literature, documentation and two clinical data sources. Data convergence revealed that neonatal skin injuries are described by numerous terms with preferences for "injury," "trauma" or "redness." Injuries occur in over 20 anatomical locations and risks for injuries included hospitalisation, specific treatments and prematurity. Essential medical devices, clinical condition, lack of clinician experience and overactive neonates were uniquely associated risks. There was incongruency between sources. The literature and documents empathise pressure as the primary force related to skin injury, while varied forces were identified within interviews, focus groups and free text injury assessments. | 3987 AUGUST eT Al.

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of antimicrobial and antithrombogenic materials incorporated into peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to prevent bloodstream infection, thrombosis, and catheter occlusion. Methods: Prospective cohort study involving 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Sample included adult hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between January 2013 and October 2019. Coated and impregnated catheters were identified by name, brand, and device marketing or regulatory materials. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with robust sandwich standard error estimates accounting for the clustered nature of data were used to identify factors associated with PICC complications in coated versus noncoated devices across general care, intensive care unit (ICU), and oncology patients. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of 42,562 patients with a PICC, 39,806 (93.5%) were plain polyurethane, 2,263 (5.3%) incorporated antimicrobial materials, and 921 (2.2%) incorporated antithrombogenic materials. Most were inserted in general ward settings (n = 28,111, 66.0%), with 12, 078 (28.4%) and 1,407 (3.3%) placed in ICU and oncological settings, respectively. Within the entire cohort, 540 (1.3%) developed thrombosis, 745 (1.8%) developed bloodstream infection, and 4,090 (9.6%) developed catheter occlusion. Adjusting for known risk factors, antimicrobial PICCs were not associated with infection reduction (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82–1.64), and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with reduction in thrombosis and occlusion (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.92–1.44). Results were consistent across populations and care settings. Conclusions: Antimicrobial and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with a reduction in major catheter complications. Guidance aimed at informing use of these devices, balancing benefits against cost, appear necessary.