BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally.DESIGN: Cross‐sectional study.SETTING/PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally.MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared.RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication (n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards (n = 22,167, 55%). Two‐thirds of all devices were placed in non‐recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs (n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of idle PIVCs was 14% (n = 5,796). Overall, 10% (n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% (n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal (n = 8,507). Over one‐third of PIVCs (n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half (n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion.CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.

Rationale, aims and objectives: Phlebitis is a common and painful complication of peripheral intravenous cannulation. The aim of this review was to identify the measures used in infusion phlebitis assessment and evaluate evidence regarding their reliability, validity, responsiveness and feasibility.Method: We conducted a systematic literature review of the Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE and EBSCO CINAHL until September 2013. All English‐language studies (randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort and cross‐sectional) that used an infusion phlebitis scale were retrieved and analysed to determine which symptoms were included in each scale and how these were measured. We evaluated studies that reported testing the psychometric properties of phlebitis assessment scales using the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: Infusion phlebitis was the primary outcome measure in 233 studies. Fifty‐three (23%) of these provided no actual definition of phlebitis. Of the 180 studies that reported measuring phlebitis incidence and/or severity, 101 (56%) used a scale and 79 (44%) used a definition alone. We identified 71 different phlebitis assessment scales. Three scales had undergone some psychometric analyses, but no scale had been rigorously tested.Conclusion: Many phlebitis scales exist, but none has been thoroughly validated for use in clinical practice. A lack of consensus on phlebitis measures has likely contributed to disparities in reported phlebitis incidence, precluding meaningful comparison of phlebitis rates.

Evidence-based bundles have reduced central line bloodstream infection rates in adult intensive care units. To tackle peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) bloodstream infection, many hospitals have implemented PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles. However, the efficacy of PIVC bundles in preventing PIVC complications and infection in hospital patients is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of PIVC insertion and maintenance bundles on preventing adverse events. In this systematic review, we searched multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and grey literature for eligible studies published in English (January 2000-December 2018) to identify intervention studies evaluating PIVC insertion or maintenance bundles with two or more components. Search terms: peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula, insertion, maintenance, bundle, infection, infiltration, extravasation, dislodgement, thrombosis, occlusion, and phlebitis. Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and quality assessments using the Downs and Black checklist. Of 14,456 records screened, 13 studies (6 interrupted time-series, 7 before-and-after) were included. Insertion and maintenance bundles included multiple components (2-7 items per bundle). Despite testing different bundles, 12 studies reported reductions in phlebitis and bloodstream infection, and one study reported no change in bloodstream infection and an increase in phlebitis rate. Methodological quality of all studies ranked between 'low' and 'fair'. The effect of PIVC bundles on PIVC complications and bloodstream infection rates remains uncertain. Standardisation of bundle components and more rigorous studies are needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017075142.

Background: Peripheral vascular catheters (PVC) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals, with 330 million sold each year in the USA alone. One in three UK inpatients at any one time has at least one PVC in situ according to the Scottish National Prevalence survey. Method: A narrative review of studies describing the infection risks associated with PVCs. Results: It is estimated that 30–80% of hospitalised patients receive at least one PVC during their hospital stay. Despite their prevalence, PVCs are not benign devices, and the high number of PVCs inserted annually has resulted in serious catheter-related bloodstream infections and significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stay and increased healthcare system costs. To date, PVC infections have been under-evaluated. Most studies focus on central venous catheter rather than PVC-associated bloodstream infections. Risks associated with PVC infection must be addressed to reduce patient morbidity and associated costs of prolonged hospital admission and treatment. Discussion: This article discusses the sources and routes of PVC-associated infection and outlines known effective prevention and intervention strategies.