MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417296753 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.069

69 Fewer pokes with faster PICCs: A quality improvement initiative to improve timely access to PICCs in paediatric care

2025· article· en· W4417296753 sur OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Smitten, Elizabeth A. Lamb

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Établissements canadiensBC Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuality managementVascular accessPeripherally inserted central catheterCatheterPatient safetyIntervention (counseling)Quality (philosophy)Quality assurance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Children requiring long courses of intravenous (IV) therapy often require a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). PICCs ensure stable access for IV antibiotics, parenteral nutrition, and other therapies. PICCs also help avoid pain from frequent needle pokes for bloodwork and new IV catheter insertions. Until recently, all PICC insertions at our tertiary hospital were performed by Interventional Radiology (IR) physicians. However, demand for PICCs exceeded IR’s capacity to insert them, leading to delays. In 2022, mean wait time for a PICC insertion was 3.9 days, with only 43% of patients receiving a PICC within 3 days of the request, and 12% of patients who needed a PICC were not able to receive one at all due to delays. Objectives The aim of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to have >90% of paediatric inpatients who require a PICC receive one within 3 days of the request. Design/Methods The Model for Improvement framework was used. An interdisciplinary QI team started by collecting baseline data. They analyzed the root causes of delayed PICC insertions and identified that scarce IR resources were a primary driver of delays. They conducted a literature review and international environmental scan, created a process map, and engaged with groups across the hospital to identify change ideas. Change ideas were prioritized using an effort-impact matrix. The chosen intervention was to implement a nurse-inserted PICC service to complement existing IR services. Nurses from the Vascular Access Team were specially trained to insert PICCs in children, and the PICC Nurse pilot was launched in June 2023 using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology to test and adapt changes. Data to track process, balancing, and outcome measures were collected in a REDCap database. Patient, caregiver, and healthcare provider satisfaction data were collected by electronic surveys accessed via a quick response (QR) code. Results In the first 16 months after the launch of the PICC Nurse service, 90 PICCs were inserted by the team. The low numbers in the initial phase (an average of 3.5 PICCs per month) were largely due to conservative eligibility criteria and lack of a formal process for sedation support, resulting in a small number of children being eligible. Ongoing PDSA cycles led to a partnership with Anesthesia for sedation support, and re-evaluation of eligibility criteria with stakeholders. These changes resulted in an increase from an average of 3.5 PICCs per month by the nurse team in the first 6 months, to an average of 7.5 PICCs per month in the most recent 6 months (Figure 1). The mean wait time for PICC insertions by the PICC Nurses was 1.6 days, down from the previous baseline of 3.9 days. 87% of patients who had their PICC inserted by a nurse received their PICC within 3 days. The majority of delays longer than 3 days occurred due to coordination with other procedures under sedation. PICC cancellations also significantly decreased. No adverse events during the PICC insertion procedure were reported. 46 people responded to the satisfaction survey; 16 patients/caregivers and 30 healthcare providers. 98% of respondents reported they were “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with the PICC insertion procedure by the PICC Nurse team. Conclusion The nurse-inserted PICC service in paediatrics was feasible, well-accepted, and safe. It enabled patients to more readily access optimum therapies and avoid the pain of repeated pokes. Patients with PICCs may be repatriated to community hospitals to complete treatment, or may be discharged home where outpatient programs exist. By empowering nurses to practice to their full scope, capacity within IR is increased, bottlenecks are reduced, and scarce tertiary care resources can be more appropriately allocated.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,032
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,032
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,169

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0320,041
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,350 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child Health→Même sujetCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→Travaux en français237 207→