IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i7-8p1074-1084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors affecting difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults: a prospective observational study

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Piredda
  • Valentina Biagioli
  • Beatrice Barrella
  • Ilaria Carpisassi
  • Roberta Ghinelli
  • Diana Giannarelli
  • Maria Grazia De Marinis

Abstract

Aims and Objectives This study aimed to identify risk factors for difficult intravenous cannulation in relation to characteristics of patients, healthcare providers and devices in adult patients accessing a radiology service. Background Early recognition of patients at risk for difficult peripheral intravenous catheterisation is important to adopt strategies able to increase the likelihood of success in intravenous cannulation, as well as to critically evaluate the use of alternative administration routes or venous devices. Design A prospective observational study was conducted in the radiology service of an Italian university hospital from January to August 2013. Methods Thirteen nurses observed 763 patients during intravenous insertion (53% were female, the mean age was 63 years and 65% had a diagnosis of cancer). For each patient, nurses collected data about potential predictors of difficult intravenous cannulation, which was defined as a procedure lasting more than one minute. Data included characteristics of patient, cannula required, venepuncture performed and operator(s) involved. Logistic regression was performed as univariate and multivariate analysis. Results The intravenous insertion time ranged from 45 seconds to 125 minutes. Overall, variables identified as significant independent predictors were chemotherapy received via peripheral cannula (OR = 1·42), veins with many valves (OR = 3·67), fragility (OR = 3·29), visibility (OR = 0·87) and palpability (OR = 0·79) as perceived by nurses. Conclusions Although many risk factors were identified, the overall success rate was very high, suggesting that nurses’ attention during cannulation protected at‐risk patients from multiple attempts. Multicentre studies should further investigate risk factors across different radiology services and clinical settings. Relevance to clinical practice These results can help nurses to recognise risk factors for difficult intravenous access and pay appropriate attention when attempting a venepuncture to preserve patients’ peripheral veins.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Piredda & Valentina Biagioli & Beatrice Barrella & Ilaria Carpisassi & Roberta Ghinelli & Diana Giannarelli & Maria Grazia De Marinis, 2017. "Factors affecting difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults: a prospective observational study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(7-8), pages 1074-1084, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:7-8:p:1074-1084
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13444
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13444?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michela Piredda & Jacopo Fiorini & Gabriella Facchinetti & Valentina Biagioli & Anna Marchetti & Fabio Conti & Laura Iacorossi & Diana Giannarelli & Maria Matarese & Maria Grazia De Marinis, 2019. "Risk factors for a difficult intravenous access: A multicentre study comparing nurses' beliefs to evidence," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(19-20), pages 3492-3504, October.
    2. Sercan Yalçınlı & Funda Karbek Akarca & Özge Can & Alper Şener & Cemile Akbinar, 2019. "Factors affecting the first‐attempt success rate of intravenous cannulation in older people," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(11-12), pages 2206-2213, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:7-8:p:1074-1084. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.