The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present study aimed to critically appraise the quality of (i) assessment instruments and (ii) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or escalation pathways for identifying and managing patients with DIVA. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and EBSCO CINAHL databases were searched on 22 March 2021. Studies describing a DIVA assessment measure, CPG or escalation pathway for PIVC insertion in adults (≥18 years of age) were included. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form including study design, type of resource and reported clinical outcomes. Quality of DIVA assessment instruments were reviewed using the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Methodological quality of CPGs and escalation pathways was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation‐II (AGREE‐II) instrument. Overall, 24 DIVA resources comprising 16 DIVA assessment instruments and nine CPGs or escalation pathways (including one combined assessment instrument and escalation pathway) were identified. Instruments commonly focused on vein visibility and palpability as indicators of DIVA. CPGs and escalation pathways unanimously recommended use of vessel visualisation technology for patients with or suspected of DIVA. Methodological quality of the resources was mixed. Consensus and standardisation of resources to identify DIVA and recommendations for managing patients with DIVA is limited. Adopting consistent, evidence‐based CPGs, escalation pathways or DIVA assessment instruments may significantly improve clinical outcomes.

Objective: To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US). Methods: Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies. Results: In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) ‘Escalation’ is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward–‘measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use. Conclusion(s): DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation.

Delirium is a common and serious neuropsychiatric complication in critically ill patients of all ages. In the context of critical illness, delirium may emerge as a result of a cascade of underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms and signals organ failure of the brain. Awareness of the clinical importance of delirium in adults is growing as emerging research demonstrates that delirium represents a serious medical problem with significant sequelae. However, our understanding of delirium in children lags significantly behind the adult literature. In particular, our knowledge of how to assess delirium is complicated by challenges in recognizing symptoms of delirium in pediatric patients especially in critical and intensive care settings, and our understanding of its impact on acute and long-term functioning remains in its infancy. This paper focuses on (a) the challenges associated with assessing delirium in critically ill children, (b) the current literature on the outcomes of delirium including morbidity following discharge from PICU, and care-giver well-being, and (c) the importance of assessment in determining impact of delirium on outcome. Current evidence suggests that delirium is a diagnostic challenge for clinicians and may play a detrimental role in a child’s recovery after discharge from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Recommendations are proposed for how our knowledge and assessment of delirium in children could be improved.

Chronic pain is common in young people aged 10–14 years. Interdisciplinary, clinician-delivered treatments, while effective, are often criticized for failing to be readily accessible. Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) have been proposed as effective treatment adjuncts that address these challenges, while meeting the needs of tech-savvy young people. The objectives of this study were to co-create a mHealth app with consumers and health care professionals and evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the resulting mHealth app (myPainPal). A phased, qualitative approach within a consumer engagement framework was employed. Interviews with young people (n = 14), parents (n = 12) and health care professionals (n = 8) identified key health needs that formed the underlying structure of the myPainPal app. Testing showed that the app is an acceptable and feasible platform to facilitate young people’s self-management of chronic pain. The myPainPal app has the potential to positively influence young people’s experiences of chronic pain. Further testing in controlled settings is required.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine patient perceptions regarding vascular access quality measurement. Methods: A web-based, cross-sectional survey was performed using a convenience sample of healthcare consumers with vascular access experience, recruited from September 2019 to June 2020. Survey respondents were asked to rate the perceived importance of 50 vascular access data items, including patient demographics, clinical and device characteristics, and insertion, management and complication data. Data were ranked using a five-point Likert scale (1, least important; 5, most important), and are reported as median values. Respondents proposed additional items and explored broader perspectives using free-text responses, which were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: In all, 68 consumers completed the survey. Participants were primarily female (82%), aged 40–49 years (29%) and living in Australia or New Zealand (84%). All respondents indicated that measuring the quality of vascular access care was important. Of the 50 items, 37 (74%) were perceived as ‘most important’ (median score 5), with measures of quality (i.e. outcomes and complications) rated highly (e.g. thrombosis and primary blood stream infection). Participants proposed 16 additional items. ‘Gender’ received the lowest perceived importance score (median score 3). Two themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of broader perspectives: (1) measurement of vascular access device complication severity and associated factors; and (2) patient experience. Conclusion: Measuring vascular access quality and safety is important to consumers. Outcome and complication measures were rated ‘most important’, with respondents identifying a need for increased monitoring of their overall vascular access journey through the health system. What is known about the topic?: The use of vascular access devices is common among hospitalised patients. Quality surveillance is not standardised, with no incorporation of patient preference. What does this paper add?: We identify the data items consumers perceive as valuable to measure related to their vascular access journey; most importantly, consumers perceived the collecting of vascular access data as important. What are the implications for practitioners?: Health services can use these data to develop platforms to monitor the quality and safety of vascular access care.