Understanding consumer preference for vascular access safety and quality measurement: an international survey
Jessica Schults A B C K , Rebecca Paterson A , Tricia Kleidon A B C , Marie Cooke A B , Amanda Ullman A B , Keith McNeil D , Vineet Chopra F , Karina Charles A C , Gillian Ray-Barruel A B E , Nicole Marsh A B G , Clair Sullivan H I , David J. Sturgess J and Claire Rickard A BA Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld, Australia. Email: r.paterson@griffith.edu.au; m.cooke@griffith.edu.au; a.ullman@griffith.edu.au; g.ray-barruel@griffith.edu.au; c.rickard@griffith.edu.au
B School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld, Australia.
C Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Queensland Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Email: tricia.kleidon@health.qld.gov.au; karina.charles@health.qld.gov.au
D Prevention Division, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Email: Keith.McNeil@health.qld.gov.au
E Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Qld, Australia.
F The Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System and VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System. Email: vineetc@med.umich.edu
G Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Qld, Australia. Email: nicole.marsh@health.qld.gov.au
H Digital Metro North, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, Qld, Australia. Email: clair.sullivan@health.qld.gov.au
I Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston, Qld, Australia.
J Department of Anaesthesia, Surgical, Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), The University of Queensland, Herston, Qld, Australia. Email: david.sturgess@health.qld.gov.au
K Corresponding author. Email: j.schults@griffith.edu.au
Australian Health Review 46(1) 12-20 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH21053
Submitted: 22 February 2021 Accepted: 6 June 2021 Published: 15 December 2021
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2022 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
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.
Keywords: adults, co-design, consumer engagement, consumer priorities, patient safety measurement, pediatrics, quality and safety, vascular access.
References
[1] Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB. Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Registries. In: Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, editors. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 3rd edn; 2014. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208628/.[2] Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, et al The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45 S3–11.
| The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17443116PubMed |
[3] US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation Research US Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4 79
| Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17034633PubMed |
[4] Rivera SC, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Slade AL, McMullan C, Calvert MJ. The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2019; 17 156
| The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31619266PubMed |
[5] Alexandrou E, Ray-Barruel G, Carr PJ, Frost SA, Inwood S, Higgins N, et al Use of Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes Worldwide. J Hosp Med 2018; 13
| Use of Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes Worldwide.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29813140PubMed |
[6] Ullman AJ, Cooke M, Kleidon T, Rickard CM. Road map for improvement: Point prevalence audit and survey of central venous access devices in paediatric acute care. J Paediatr Child Health 2017; 53 123–30.
| Road map for improvement: Point prevalence audit and survey of central venous access devices in paediatric acute care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27709723PubMed |
[7] Malyon L, Ullman AJ, Phillips N, Young J, Kleidon T, Murfield J, Rickard CM. Peripheral intravenous catheter duration and failure in paediatric acute care: A prospective cohort study. Emerg Med Australas 2014; 26 602–8.
| Peripheral intravenous catheter duration and failure in paediatric acute care: A prospective cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25346034PubMed |
[8] Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, et al Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet 2012; 380 1066–74.
| Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22998716PubMed |
[9] Marsh N, Webster J, Larson E, Cooke M, Mihala G, Rickard CM. Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure. J Hosp Med 2018; 13 83–9.
| 29073316PubMed |
[10] Chopra V, Anand S, Krein SL, Chenoweth C, Saint S. Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence. Am J Med 2012; 125 733–41.
| Bloodstream infection, venous thrombosis, and peripherally inserted central catheters: reappraising the evidence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22840660PubMed |
[11] Cooke M, Ullman AJ, Ray-Barruel G, Wallis M, Corley A, Rickard CM. Not “just” an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries. PLoS One 2018; 13 e0193436
| Not “just” an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29489908PubMed |
[12] Nicholson J, Davies L. Patients’ experiences of the PICC insertion procedure. Br J Nurs 2013; 22 S16–23.
| Patients’ experiences of the PICC insertion procedure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24261003PubMed |
[13] Sharp R, Grech C, Fielder A, Mikocka-Walus A, Cummings M, Esterman A. The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study. Contemp Nurse 2014; 48 26–35.
| The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25410192PubMed |
[14] Gabriel J. What Patients Think of a PICC. J Vasc Access Devices 2000; 5 26–9.
| What Patients Think of a PICC.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Mutti C, Fumagalli A, Monni P, Rancati S, Rosi IM. Ti racconto della mia scatoletta”: studio fenomenologico sull’esperienza di vivere con un catetere venoso centrale totalmente impiantato [‘Let me tell you about my little box’: phenomenological study on the experience of living with a totally implantable central venous catheter.] Assist Inferm Ric 2016; 35 180–6.
| 28151510PubMed |
[16] Chernecky C. Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with venous access devices in outpatient oncology: a pilot study. Oncol Nurs Forum 2001; 28 1613–6.
| 11759308PubMed |
[17] Weingart SN, Zhu J, Chiappetta L, Stuver SO, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, et al Hospitalized patients’ participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety. Int J Qual Health Care 2011; 23 269–77.
| Hospitalized patients’ participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21307118PubMed |
[18] McHugh SM, Corrigan MA, Dimitrov BD, Morris-Downes M, Fitzpatrick F, Cowman S, et al Role of patient awareness in prevention of peripheral vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32 95–6.
| Role of patient awareness in prevention of peripheral vascular catheter-related bloodstream infection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21087126PubMed |
[19] Schults JA, Rickard CM, Kleidon T, Hughes R, Macfarlane F, Hung J, Ullman AJ. Building a Global, Pediatric Vascular Access Registry: A Scoping Review of Trial Outcomes and Quality Indicators to Inform Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2019; 16 51–9.
| Building a Global, Pediatric Vascular Access Registry: A Scoping Review of Trial Outcomes and Quality Indicators to Inform Evidence-Based Practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30604496PubMed |
[20] Vincent C, Burnett S, Carthey J. Safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a framework to guide clinical teams and healthcare organisations in maintaining safety. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 670–7.
| Safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a framework to guide clinical teams and healthcare organisations in maintaining safety.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24764136PubMed |
[21] Baskin KM, Durack JC, Abu-Elmagd K, Doellman D, Drews BB, Journeycake JM, et al Chronic Central Venous Access: From Research Consensus Panel to National Multistakeholder Initiative. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 461–9.
| Chronic Central Venous Access: From Research Consensus Panel to National Multistakeholder Initiative.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29456059PubMed |
[22] Durieux P, Nizard R, Ravaud P, Mounier N, Lepage E. A Clinical Decision Support System for Prevention of Venous ThromboembolismEffect on Physician Behavior. JAMA 2000; 283 2816–21.
| A Clinical Decision Support System for Prevention of Venous ThromboembolismEffect on Physician Behavior.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10838650PubMed |
[23] Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. with the HI. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 36
| with the HI. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28395667PubMed |
[24] Schults JA, Woods C, Cooke M, Kleidon T, Marsh N, Ray-Barruel G, Rickard CM. Healthcare practitioner perspectives and experiences regarding vascular access device data: An exploratory study. Int J Healthc Manag 2020;
| Healthcare practitioner perspectives and experiences regarding vascular access device data: An exploratory study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Sypes EE, de Grood C, Clement FM, Parsons Leigh J, Whalen-Browne L, Stelfox HT, Niven DJ. Understanding the public’s role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2020; 15 20
| Understanding the public’s role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32264926PubMed |
[26] van der Veer SN, Haller MC, Pittens CA, Broerse J, Castledine C, Gallieni M, et al Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making–An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians. PLoS One 2015; 10 e0128228
| Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making–An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26151822PubMed |
[27] American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 9th edn. AAPOR; 2016. Available at https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf
[28] Fincham JE. Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal. Am J Pharm Educ 2008; 72 43
| Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18483608PubMed |
[29] Schults JAKleidon TChopra CCooke MPaterson RSUllman AJ
[30] Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) Use Initiative: HMS; 2020. Available at https://www.mi-hms.org/quality-initiatives/peripherally-inserted-central-catheter-picc-use-initiative
[31] Kleidon TM, Horowitz J, Rickard CM, Ullman AJ, Marsh N, Schults J, Ratz D, Chopra V. Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis after placement via electrocardiography vs traditional methods. Am J Med 2021; 134 e79–88.
| Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis after placement via electrocardiography vs traditional methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32673624PubMed |
[32] Kleidon TM, Rickard CM, Schults JA, Mihala G, McBride CA, Rudkin J, Chaseling B, Ullman AJ. Development of a paediatric central venous access device database: A retrospective cohort study of practice evolution and risk factors for device failure. J Paediatr Child Health 2020; 56 289–97.
| Development of a paediatric central venous access device database: A retrospective cohort study of practice evolution and risk factors for device failure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31436918PubMed |
[33] Takashima M, Ray-Barruel G, Ullman A, Keogh S, Rickard CM. Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review. PLoS One 2017; 12 e0174164
| Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28323880PubMed |
[34] Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29 489–97.
| The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16977646PubMed |
[35] Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30 459–67.
| Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17654487PubMed |
[36] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 77–101.
| Using thematic analysis in psychology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[37] Casey JR, Hanson CS, Winkelmayer WC, Craig JC, Palmer S, Strippoli GF, Tong A. Patients’ perspectives on hemodialysis vascular access: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Am J Kidney Dis 2014; 64 937–53.
| Patients’ perspectives on hemodialysis vascular access: a systematic review of qualitative studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25115617PubMed |
[38] Ritchie M, Kelly LJ, Moss J, Paul J, Shaw R. Exploring Attitudes towards a Randomised Controlled Trial of Venous access Devices – a Nested Pre-trial Qualitative Study. J Vasc Access 2015; 16 407–12.
| Exploring Attitudes towards a Randomised Controlled Trial of Venous access Devices – a Nested Pre-trial Qualitative Study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26349872PubMed |
[39] Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. J Adv Nurs 2006; 53 91–100.
| Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16422698PubMed |
[40] Lincoln YS, Guba EG. But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Dir Program Eval 1986; 1986 73–84.
| But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[41] Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2018.
[42] Tuffaha HW, Marsh N, Byrnes J, Gavin N, Webster J, Cooke M, Rickard CM. Cost of vascular access devices in public hospitals in Queensland. Aust Health Rev 2019; 43 511–5.
| Cost of vascular access devices in public hospitals in Queensland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30176985PubMed |
[43] Tuffaha HW, Rickard CM, Inwood S, Gordon L, Scuffham P. The epic3 recommendation that clinically indicated replacement of peripheral venous catheters is safe and cost-saving: how much would the NHS save? J Hosp Infect 2014; 87 183–4.
| The epic3 recommendation that clinically indicated replacement of peripheral venous catheters is safe and cost-saving: how much would the NHS save?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24928785PubMed |
[44] Sharp R, Grech C, Fielder A, Mikocka-Walus A, Cummings M, Esterman A. The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study. Contemp Nurse 2014; 48 26–35.
| The patient experience of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): A qualitative descriptive study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25410192PubMed |
[45] Barnett A, Winning M, Canaris S, Cleary M, Staib A, Sullivan C. Digital transformation of hospital quality and safety: real-time data for real-time action. Aust Health Rev 2019; 43 656–61.
| Digital transformation of hospital quality and safety: real-time data for real-time action.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30384880PubMed |
[46] National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report June 2009. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing; 2009.
