Cited by 430Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisIntravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyVascular Procedures and Complications

Use of Short Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes Worldwide

Open access
Alexandrou, Evan, Ray‐Barruel, Gillian, Carr, Peter J., Frost, Steven A., Inwood, Sheila, Higgins, Niall, Lin, Frances, Alberto, Laura +3 more·2018·Journal of Hospital Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) use in health care is common worldwide. Failure of PIVCs is also common, resulting in premature removal and replacement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics, management practices, and outcomes of PIVCs internationally. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional study. SETTING/PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients from rural, regional, and metropolitan areas internationally. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital, device, and inserter characteristics were collected along with assessment of the catheter insertion site. PIVC use in different geographic regions was compared. RESULTS: We reviewed 40,620 PIVCs in 51 countries. PIVCs were used primarily for intravenous medication ( n = 28,571, 70%) and predominantly inserted in general wards ( n = 22,167, 55%). Two‐thirds of all devices were placed in non‐recommended sites such as the hand, wrist, or antecubital veins. Nurses inserted most PIVCs ( n = 28,575, 71%); although there was wide regional variation (26% to 97%). The prevalence of idle PIVCs was 14% ( n = 5,796). Overall, 10% ( n = 4,204) of PIVCs were painful to the patient or otherwise symptomatic of phlebitis; a further 10% ( n = 3,879) had signs of PIVC malfunction; and 21% of PIVC dressings were suboptimal ( n = 8,507). Over one‐third of PIVCs ( n = 14,787, 36%) had no documented daily site assessment and half ( n = 19,768, 49%) had no documented date and time of insertion. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that many PIVCs were placed in areas of flexion, were symptomatic or idle, had suboptimal dressings, or lacked adequate documentation. This suggests inconsistency between recommended management guidelines for PIVCs and current practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12788/jhm.3039

Cites

41 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cannulation practices can be influenced by differences in users' health conditions, local protocols and routines, staff habits and preferences, intended use for the cannula, and other factors.

    “The potential influences of the environment in which health care is provided cannot be analyzed with these studies, but it appears to be clear that cannulation practices can be influenced by differences in users' health conditions, local protocols and routines, staff habits and preferences, intended use for the cannula, and other.44”

    From Defining risk factors associated with difficult peripheral venous Cannulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) links catheter-size choices to clinical needs, such as resuscitation or difficult venous access, and suggests that some choices may reflect hospital policies. It also reports regional differences in insertion practices. The paper does not establish staff habits or preferences as influences, so it supports only part of the attributed list. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexandrou, E., Ray‐Barruel, G., Carr, P. J., Frost, S. A., Inwood, S., Higgins, N., Lin, F., Alberto, L., Mermel, L., Rickard, C. M., & the OMG Study Group
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Alexandrou, Evan
Venue
Journal of Hospital Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05
Volume
13
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 1553-5592 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-5606
OpenAlex
W2806490016
Cited by
430
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 6
FWCI
57.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cook Medical
  • Griffith University
  • Western Sydney University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
Keywords
peripheral intravenous catheters, catheter insertion site, catheter malfunction, phlebitis, catheter dressing, regional variation in practice, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Catheterization, Peripheral, Catheters, Indwelling, Cross-Sectional Studies, Documentation, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Internationality, Administration, Intravenous

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review