MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934281659 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022278

Factors associated with peripheral intravenous cannulation first-time insertion success in the emergency department. A multicentre prospective cohort analysis of patient, clinician and product characteristics

2019· article· en· W2934281659 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. Carr, James Rippey, Marie Cooke, Michelle Trevenen, Niall Higgins, Aileen Foale, Claire M. Rickard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersFiona Stanley HospitalGovernment of Western AustraliaGriffith University
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Logistic regressionUnivariate analysisSurgeryMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives This study aimed to identify the incidence of and factors associated with peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula (PIVC) first time insertion success (FTIS) in the emergency department (ED). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Two tertiary EDs in Western Australia. Participants 879 ED patients. Primary outcome To identify factors affecting FTIS using univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling. We created four models: patient factors only; clinician factors only; products and technology factors only and all factors model . We assessed each model’s performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results A total of 1201 PIVCs were inserted in 879 patients. The mean age was 60.3 (SD 22) years with slightly more females (52%). The FTIS rate was 73%, with 128 (15%) requiring a second attempt and 83 (9%) requiring three or more attempts. A small percentage (3%) had no recorded number of subsequent attempts. FTIS was related to the following patient factors: age (for a 1-year increase in age: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.998; p=0.0097); and target vein palpability: (always palpable vs never palpable: OR 3.53 95% CI 1.64 to 7.60; only palpable with tourniquet vs never palpable: OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.57; p=0.0014). Clinician factors related to FTIS include: clinicians with greater confidence (p<0.0001) and insertion experience (301–1000 vs <301: OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.34; >1000 vs <301: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.04; p=0.0011). The final all factors model combining patient factors; clinician factors and product and technology factors has greater discriminative ability than specific factors models. It has a sensitivity of 74.26%, specificity of 57.69%, positive predictive value of 82.87% and negative predictive value of 44.85%. Conclusion A clinical decision, matching patients who have no palpable veins and are older, with clinicians with greater confidence and experience, will likely improve FTIS. Trialregistration number ANZCTRN12615000588594; Results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207