Author:
Ricou Ríos Laura,Esposito Català Candela,Pons Calsapeu Arnau,Adroher Mas Cristina,Andrés Martínez Isabel,Nuño Ruiz Isaac,Castellà Creus Mònica,Castellà Fàbregas Laia,García Quesada Maria José,Estrada Cuxart Oriol,Ara del Rey Jordi,López Seguí Francesc
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. The objective of the study is to evaluate previously to the implementation whether the benefits of introducing ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheters, midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters compared to current practice by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs.
Methods
Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when changing the current practice for the use of ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters, as well as the additional resources required for their use.
Results
The use of an ultrasound-guided device on peripherally inserted central carheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, the use of an ultrasound-guided device on a midline catheter, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96.
Conclusion
The benefits of using ultrasound-guided midline and PICC catheters compared to current practice by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of phebitis. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Gencat. Unnecessary peripheral venous catheter. In: Essencial. 2022. https://essencialsalut.gencat.cat/es/detalls/Article/cateter_venos. Accessed 12 Oct 2022.
2. Badia JM, Barrufet P, Campins Martí M, Casas-García I, Cots JM, Díaz E, Domènech-Bagué D, Duran J, Gasch O, Grau-Cerrato S, Hernández-Baeza S. Programa de vigilància de les infeccions relacionades amb l’atenció sanitària de Catalunya (VINCat): manual VINCat.
3. Gledstone-Brown L, McHugh D. Idle ‘just‐in‐case’peripheral intravenous cannulas in the emergency department: is something wrong? Emerg Med Australasia. 2018;30(3):309–26.
4. Pittiruti M, Van Boxtel T, Scoppettuolo G, Carr P, Konstantinou E, Ortiz Miluy G, Lamperti M, Goossens GA, Simcock L, Dupont C, Inwood S. European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): a WoCoVA project. J Vasc Access. 2023;24(1):165–82.
5. Del Rio C, Corredor R, Cubero MA, Lafuente E. Lasso de la Vega C. Excellence in the creation of Infusion and Vascular Access Teams. In: Spanish Society of Infusion and Vascular Access. BD. 2020. https://seinav.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/104456-MANUAL-BD.pdf.