A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Difficult intravenous access in the emergency department: Performance and impact of ultrasound-guided IV insertion performed by nurses. | LitMetric

Background: Difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is a common problem in Emergency Departments (EDs), yet the prevalence and clinical impact of this condition is poorly understood. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter (USGPIV) insertion is a successful modality for obtaining intravenous (IV) access in patients with DIVA.

Objectives: We aimed to describe the prevalence of DIVA, explore how DIVA affects delivery of care, and determine if nurse insertion of USGPIV improves care delays among patients with DIVA.

Methods: We retrospectively queried the electronic medical record for all ED patients who had a peripheral IV (PIV) inserted at a tertiary academic medical center from 2015 to 2017. We categorized patients as having DIVA if they required ≥3 PIV attempts or an USGPIV. We compared metrics for care delivery including time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED length of stay (LOS) between patients with and without DIVA. We also compared these metrics in patients with DIVA with a physician-inserted USGPIV versus those with a nurse-inserted USGPIV.

Results: A total of 147,260 patients were evaluated during the study period. Of these, 13,192 (8.9%) met criteria for DIVA. Patients with DIVA encountered statistically significant delays in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients without DIVA (all p < 0.001). Patients with nurse-inserted USGPIVs also had statistically significant improvements in time-to-IV-access, time-to-laboratory-results, time-to-IV-analgesia, and ED LOS compared to patients with physician-inserted USGPIVs (all p < 0.001).

Conclusion: DIVA affects many ED patients and leads to delays in PIV access-related care. Nurse insertion of USGPIVs improves care in patients with DIVA.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients diva
20
intravenous access
12
diva
9
patients
9
difficult intravenous
8
compared metrics
8
time-to-iv-access time-to-laboratory-results
8
time-to-laboratory-results time-to-iv-analgesia
8
access emergency
4
emergency department
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!