Peripherally inserted central catheter complications highlight the need for ongoing support: results of a chart audit
Karen Jennings A , Tina Cann B D and Wendy Smyth B CA Medical Imaging Department, The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Qld, Australia.
B Tropical Health Research Unit for Nursing and Midwifery Practice, Townsville Health Service District, Townsville, Qld, Australia.
C School of Nursing, Midwifery and Nutrition, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: Tina_Cann@health.qld.gov.au
Healthcare Infection 16(3) 95-99 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI11015
Submitted: 24 March 2011 Accepted: 10 May 2011 Published: 26 September 2011
Abstract
Introduction: Since the 1940s, peripherally inserted central catheters have proved beneficial to patients and organisations, in acute and community settings.
Background: Nurses within the Medical Imaging Department of an Australian regional hospital commenced insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters under ultrasound guidance in 2002. This initiative increased the number of successful insertion attempts and reduced sequelae of poorly-inserted catheters. However, medical imaging nurses raised concerns regarding the number of patients returning to the department for catheter replacements.
Process: A retrospective audit of charts of patients who had a peripherally inserted central catheter over a 13-month period was undertaken. Data were collected to ascertain: the number of peripherally inserted central catheters replaced within 8 weeks of insertion; the reasons for replacement; and number of days before complications arose.
Findings: Over 10% of the 575 patients who had a peripherally inserted central catheter within the time period had their catheters replaced (n = 59). Three main complications contributed to the need for line replacement: suspected infection (44%); occluded lines (23%); and securement issues such as dislodgement or accidental removal (15%). Laboratory-confirmed infections included both Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. The median dwell time until complication was 13 days.
Outcomes: This review has identified that introducing a new service does not negate the need for ongoing support and resourcing in order to sustain low complication rates.
References
[1] Rutledge DN, Viele C. Insertion and care of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for intravenous infusions. Online Journal of Clinical Innovations 2006; 9 1–73.[2] Hertzog DR, Waybill PN. Complications and controversies associated with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Infus Nurs 2008; 31 159–63.
| Complications and controversies associated with peripherally inserted central catheters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Al Raiy B, Fakih MG, Bryan-Nomides N, Hopfner D, Riegel E, Nenninger T, et al Peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the acute care setting: a safe alternative to high-risk short-term central venous catheters. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38 149–53.
| Peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the acute care setting: a safe alternative to high-risk short-term central venous catheters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Hornsby S, Matter K, Beets B, Casey S, Kokotis K. Cost losses associated with the “PICC, stick, and run team” concept. J Infus Nurs 2005; 28 45–53.
| Cost losses associated with the “PICC, stick, and run team” concept.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Di Giacomo M. Comparison of three peripherally-inserted central catheters: pilot study. Br J Nurs 2009; 18 8–16.
[6] Liu H, Han T, Zheng Y, Tong X, Piao M, Zhang H. Analysis of complication rates and reasons for nonelective removal of PICCs in neonatal intensive care unit preterm infants. J Infus Nurs 2009; 32 336–40.
| Analysis of complication rates and reasons for nonelective removal of PICCs in neonatal intensive care unit preterm infants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Chu FSK, Cheng VCC, Law MWM, Tso WK. Efficacy and complications in peripherally inserted central catheter insertion: a study using 4-Fr non-valved catheters and a single infusate. Australas Radiol 2007; 51 453–7.
| Efficacy and complications in peripherally inserted central catheter insertion: a study using 4-Fr non-valved catheters and a single infusate.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2srit1SmtA%3D%3D&md5=3608159c1967e4a145b02a79d6b621a4CAS |
[8] Ault MJ, Ng PK, Artal R. The changing use of peripherally inserted central catheters: a review of 5000 insertions at a single hospital. J Clin Outcomes Manag 2001; 8 17–23.
[9] Fong NI, Holtzman SR, Bettmann MA, Bettis SJ. Peripherally inserted central catheters: outcome as a function of the operator. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 12 723–9.
| Peripherally inserted central catheters: outcome as a function of the operator.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mzhs1GqtA%3D%3D&md5=0c67d183d8108db4eede8c0a439347faCAS |
[10] Yap Y, Karapetis C, Lerose S, Iyer S, Koczwara B. Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2006; 15 342–7.
| Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Shah BR, Hux JE. Quantifying the risk of infectious diseases for people with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003; 26 510–3.
| Quantifying the risk of infectious diseases for people with diabetes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Hendy R. Auditing PICC line management. Nurs Times 2001; 97 32–3.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD383gt12itA%3D%3D&md5=300afee3bdc7efb3985b56eddc4ce135CAS |
[13] Scocca A, Gioia A, Poli P. Initial experience of a nurse-implemented peripherally inserted central catheter program in Italy. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access 2008; 13 27–30.
| Initial experience of a nurse-implemented peripherally inserted central catheter program in Italy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] CHRISP [Centre for Healthcare Related Infection Surveillance and Prevention]. Recommended practices for the insertion and management of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC). 2009. Brisbane: Queensland Health.
[15] Paterson D, McCormack J. More evidence of the benefits of rational antimicrobial use in clinical practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24 642–3.
| More evidence of the benefits of rational antimicrobial use in clinical practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Eggimann P, Harbarth S, Constantin M, Touveneau S, Chevrolet J, Pittet D. Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care. Lancet 2000; 355 1864–8.
| Impact of a prevention strategy targeted at vascular-access care on incidence of infections acquired in intensive care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czit1yisw%3D%3D&md5=5e4ea45632200804d1ed3586b1241a63CAS |
[17] Collignon P, Dreimanis D, Beckingham W, Roberts J, Gardner A. Intravascular catheter bloodstream infections: an effective and sustained hospital-wide prevention program over 8 years. Med J Aust 2007; 187 551–4.
[18] Bowe-Geddes LA, Nichols HA. An overview of peripherally inserted central catheters. Topics in Advanced Practice Nursing 2005; 5 1–8.
[19] Tilton D. How to fine-tune your PICC care. RN 2006; 69 30–6.
[20] Bartock L. An evidence-based systematic review of literature for the reduction of PICC line occlusions. peripherally inserted central venous catheter. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access 2010; 15 58–63.
| An evidence-based systematic review of literature for the reduction of PICC line occlusions. peripherally inserted central venous catheter.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |