Effects of a Systematic Quality Improvement Process to Decrease Complications in Trauma Patients With Prehospital Peripheral Intravenous Access

Garrett, A; Drake, Stacy A.; Holcomb, John B.

doi:10.1097/jtn.0000000000000297

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More studies reported using implementation frameworks during study preparation ( n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase ( n = 7, 26%) than the evaluation phase ( n = 4, 15%). Nine implementation frameworks were identified in included studies, including the Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (PACES) (Coomarasamy et al, 2014), Getting Research Into Practice (GRIP) (Coomarasamy et al, 2014; Gunasundram et al, 2021), Six Sigma initiative (DeVries et al, 2021), Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) (Forberg et al, 2016), Alberta Context Tool (ACT) (Forberg et al, 2016), Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) (Garrett, 2017), Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) (Kleidon et al, 2019), Lean (Oh et al, 2020) and Kotter's Change Model (Stevens et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 27 included studies, the majority were quantitative in design ( n = 25, 93%) and conducted at a single site ( n = 25, 93%). Most of the studies were from the United States of America (USA) ( n = 12, 44%) (Boyar & Galiczewski, 2021; DeVries et al, 2016, 2021; Fakih et al, 2012, 2013; Garrett, 2017; Gilton et al, 2019; Oh et al, 2020; Platt & Osenkarski, 2018; Stevens et al, 2018; Taylor, 2015; Tofani et al, 2012) or Australia ( n = 7, 26%) (Cabilan et al, 2014; Hawkins et al, 2018; Keogh et al, 2020; Kleidon et al, 2019; Lim et al, 2020; Rhodes et al, 2016; Yagnik et al, 2017), with the remainder from Italy (Frigerio et al, 2012), Sweden (Forberg et al, 2016), Germany (Kampf et al, 2013), Spain (Mestre et al, 2013), Hong Kong (Chan et al, 2020), Taiwan (Chiu et al, 2015), Malaysia (Coomarasamy et al, 2014) and Singapore (Gunasundram et al, 2021). All studies were conducted in a hospital environment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies (48%) covered the three critical phases of PIVC use. Act (PDCA) (Garrett, 2017), Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) (Kleidon et al, 2019), Lean (Oh et al, 2020) and Kotter's Change Model (Stevens et al, 2018).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review

Keogh

Ullman

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThe aim of this study was to critically evaluate implementation frameworks, strategies and/or outcomes used to optimise peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care and/or promote guideline adherence.BackgroundAlthough a considerable volume of research has investigated the effectiveness of PIVC interventions and treatments to promote performance and prevent harm, how to best implement this evidence into dynamic clinical settings and populations is not well understood. Implementation science is central to translating evidence‐based knowledge to the bedside; however, there is a gap in identifying the best implementation framework, strategies and/or outcomes to optimise PIVC care and/or guideline adherence.DesignA systematic review.MethodThe review was conducted using innovative automation tools. Five databases and clinical trial registries were searched on 14 October 2021. Qualitative and quantitative PIVC intervention studies reporting implementation strategies were included in the review. Data were extracted independently by experienced researchers in pairs. The Mixed Method Appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. The systematic review was reported following the PRISMA checklist.ResultsOf 2189 references identified, 27 studies were included in the review. Implementation frameworks were used in 30% (n = 8) of studies, with most used during the preparation (n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase (n = 7, 26%) and then evaluation phase (n = 4, 15%). Multifaceted strategies were commonly adopted (n = 24, 89%) to promote PIVC care or study interventions which were clinician (n = 25, 93%) and patient‐targeted (n = 15, 56%). The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (n = 13, 48%) and adoption (n = 6, 22%). Most studies were scored as low quality (n = 18, 67%).ConclusionWe call for researchers and clinicians to work together and use implementation science frameworks to guide study design, implementation and evaluation in future PIVC studies, to improve evidence translation and thereby improve patient outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review

Keogh

Ullman

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implementing a Novel Guideline to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in a Trauma Population: A Patient-Safety Approach

Lam

Elkbuli

Benson

et al. 2018

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of Dwell Time for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Started in the Field for Geriatric Blunt Trauma Patients

Day

Conde

2018

Journal of Trauma Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replacement time for peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters started in the field is unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare field-start PIV catheter dwell time of 2 days or less versus field-start PIV catheter dwell time of more than 2 days for the development of indicators of infection for geriatric blunt trauma patients. A retrospective case series was conducted at the state-designated trauma referral center. Activated trauma team patients with blunt injury were included if 65 years or older and if admitted from the field for 7 days or more with a PIV catheter placed prehospital. Presence of fever, abnormal white blood cell (WBC) count, and a positive Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score as recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign were used to describe potential infection and were analyzed in relation to PIV catheter dwell time with statistical significance set at p < .05. Forty-two patients (28%) had PIV catheter dwell time of 2 days or less, and 108 (72%) had PIV catheter dwell time of more than 2 days. At dwell time of more than 2 days, a statistically significant smaller percentage of patients demonstrated positive qSOFA score (p = .005) and fever (p = .003) and approached statistical significance for abnormal WBC count (p = .05). Dwell time of more than 2 days for field-start PIV catheters did not lead to an increase in fevers, abnormal WBC count, or positive qSOFA scores. These data support consideration of longer dwell time for PIV catheters initiated in the field for geriatric blunt trauma patients. Further studies are needed.

show abstract

Effects of a Systematic Quality Improvement Process to Decrease Complications in Trauma Patients With Prehospital Peripheral Intravenous Access

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review

Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review

Implementing a Novel Guideline to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers in a Trauma Population: A Patient-Safety Approach

Evaluation of Dwell Time for Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Started in the Field for Geriatric Blunt Trauma Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About