69 Fewer pokes with faster PICCs: A quality improvement initiative to improve timely access to PICCs in paediatric care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».