Peripheral Ivs and Phlebitis
Phlebitis and Peripheral Intravenous Line Dwell time
Abstract: Many health care institutions have policies which mandate the discontinuation and restarting of peripheral IVs at seventy-two hours. The aim of these policies is to prevent phlebitis. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evidence for this practice to determine if is necessary. The PICO Question is: is there any difference in the rate of phlebitis when an IV is allowed to remain longer than 72 hours if there are no problems; or discontinued after 72 hours and restarted. Six research studies were found using CINAHL and Medline using the key words “phlebitis” and “peripheral IVs”. The articles were from around the world and reflected both sides of the issue. These studies show that the rate of phlebitis and other complications is not significantly different in a peripheral IV, which was changed at a prescribed time and an IV which was changed only when symptomatic. More research needs to be done, and the dwell time of an individual peripheral IV is not the largest cause of complications.
Stetler Phase I. Preparation Many health care institutions have policies concerning peripheral intravenous lines (IVs) and the length of time that the IVs are to remain in place. Usually the policies mandate that peripheral IVs be discontinued and restarted after 72 hours, even if the IV site is healthy and there are no signs or symptoms of complications. This increases patient discomfort, medical costs, nursing time and may be unnecessary. The purpose of this paper is to examine the scientific research that concerning the policy of elective IV change. Is there any difference in the rate of phlebitis when an IV is allowed to remain longer than 72 hours if there are no problems; or discontinued after 72 hours and restarted. The standard of the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) states that IV sites should be changed every 72 hours (INS,
Abstract: Many health care institutions have policies which mandate the discontinuation and restarting of peripheral IVs at seventy-two hours. The aim of these policies is to prevent phlebitis. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evidence for this practice to determine if is necessary. The PICO Question is: is there any difference in the rate of phlebitis when an IV is allowed to remain longer than 72 hours if there are no problems; or discontinued after 72 hours and restarted. Six research studies were found using CINAHL and Medline using the key words “phlebitis” and “peripheral IVs”. The articles were from around the world and reflected both sides of the issue. These studies show that the rate of phlebitis and other complications is not significantly different in a peripheral IV, which was changed at a prescribed time and an IV which was changed only when symptomatic. More research needs to be done, and the dwell time of an individual peripheral IV is not the largest cause of complications.
Stetler Phase I. Preparation Many health care institutions have policies concerning peripheral intravenous lines (IVs) and the length of time that the IVs are to remain in place. Usually the policies mandate that peripheral IVs be discontinued and restarted after 72 hours, even if the IV site is healthy and there are no signs or symptoms of complications. This increases patient discomfort, medical costs, nursing time and may be unnecessary. The purpose of this paper is to examine the scientific research that concerning the policy of elective IV change. Is there any difference in the rate of phlebitis when an IV is allowed to remain longer than 72 hours if there are no problems; or discontinued after 72 hours and restarted. The standard of the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) states that IV sites should be changed every 72 hours (INS,
References: Barker, P.,Anderson, A. D. G., MacFie, J. (2004). Randomised clinical trial of re-siting of intravenous cannulae. Annals of the College of Surgeons of England, 86, 281-283. doi: 10.1308/147870804317 Centers for Disease Control.(2011). Guidelines for Prevention of Intravascular Catheter Related Infections. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5110a.htm Infusion Nurses Society, (2006). Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 25. Idvall, E., Gunningberg, L., (2006). Evidence for elective replacement of peripheral intravenous catheter to prevent thrombophlebitis: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 55(6), 715-722.. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2468.2006.03962.x Maki, D., Ringer, M. (1991). Risk factors for infusion related phlebitis with small peripheral venous cathete Annals of Internal Medicine, 114, 845-854. Powell, J., Tarnow, K. G., Perucca, R. (2008). The relationship between peripheral intravenous catheter indwell time and the incidence of phlebitis. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 31, 39-45. Rickard, C. M., McCann,D., Munnings, J., McGrail, M. R. (2010). Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine. 8:53, Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/8/53 Tripathi, S., Kaushik, V., Varinder,S. (2008). Peripheral IVs: factors affecting complications and patency-a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 31:3 182-188. doi: 10.1097/01.NAN.0000317704.03415.b9 Uslusoy, E., Mete, S. (2008) Predisposing factors to phlebitis in patients with peripheral intravenous catheters: a descriptive study. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 20, 172-180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2008.00305.x Wills, M. E., McEwen, M. (2002). Theoretical Basis for Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins