Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-n9pbb Total loading time: 0.31 Render date: 2021-09-21T09:39:08.616Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Promoting an action plan for devices in the emergency department—does it impact catheter duration?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2018

Bernard Surial*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland Department of Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
Andrew Atkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
Susanne Nüesch
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
Joerg C. Schefold
Affiliation:
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
Jonas Marschall
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
*Corresponding
Author for correspondence: Bernard Surial, MD, Department of Infectious Diseases, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Freiburgstrasse 18, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail: Benard.Surial@insel.ch
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 

To the Editor—Urinary catheters, arterial lines, and central venous catheters (CVCs) are frequently placed in emergency departments (EDs). However, because many devices are inserted for inappropriate and poorly documented reasons,Reference Schuur, Chambers and Hou 1 , Reference Gokula, Smith and Hickner 2 physicians on the receiving hospital floors are often unaware of their presence and indication, which can lead to unnecessarily long catheterization.Reference Saint, Wiese and Amory 3 We hypothesized that if the indication and anticipated duration were explicitly stated in the ED discharge report, subsequent care providers would be more aware of these devices in place and could decide more confidently whether to remove them. This information could increase appropriate use, shorten the duration of catheterization, and thereby reduce device-associated complications.

We conducted an intervention study in a 950-bed university hospital in Switzerland, where we included all patients admitted to the hospital with a device (ie, urinary catheter, arterial line, or CVC) placed in our 30-bed ED. Patients with devices placed before ED arrival and patients transferred to another hospital were excluded. We captured data during a preintervention period (July 2016–March 2017) and an intervention period (April–June 2017). Because this study was part of a quality improvement project, no institutional review board approval was required.

During the intervention period, all ED physicians were asked to include in the ED discharge report an action plan for each inserted device with (1) the type of device, (2) the indication for its placement, (3) the anticipated duration. Our infection prevention team held a meeting at the beginning of the intervention, posted indication sheets in the ED work area, and sent weekly e-mail reminders with pertinent information. The timing of this period was aligned with the baseline surveillance of a national pilot program aimed at reducing urinary catheter utilization and its complications with bundled interventions. 4

The primary outcome was duration of device placement before and after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were device insertion rates and compliance with the intervention requirements. Electronic health records were used to identify eligible patients and to obtain demographic data including time of device placement and removal. All ED discharge reports during the intervention period were reviewed to determine whether a device-related action plan was proposed. Continuous data are presented as median (interquartile range, IQR), and categorical data are presented as numbers and percentages. We compared continuous variables using the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests and proportions using the χ2 test. Data analyses were performed using R Studio software. 5

During the study period, 1,346 devices were inserted in ED patients admitted to our hospital. Most were urinary catheters (n=771, 57.3%) and arterial lines (n=528, 39.2%), and a few were CVCs (n=47, 3.5%). Most patients were male (n=805, 59.8%) with a median age of 70 years (IQR, 55.0–79.0) and were admitted to the intensive care unit at some point during their hospitalization (n=979, 72.7%). Table 1 summarizes the catheter durations and their insertion rates. The median duration of urinary catheters was 70.2 hours (35.7–138.0); the median duration of arterial lines was 40.2 hours (20.6–75.4); and the median duration of CVC was 78.8 hours (25.5–163.5). Neither overall duration of catheterization nor that of individual devices decreased over time.

Table 1 Duration of Catheterization and Insertion Rates of Devices Placed in the Emergency Department

NOTE. CVC, central venous catheter; ED, emergency department.

a Wilcoxon or χ2 test.

A device was placed in 10.2% of all admitted ED patients. Urinary catheters were placed in 5.9%, followed by arterial lines in 4.0%, and CVC in 0.4% of all patients. Although the overall insertion rates did not change after the intervention, we observed increased use of arterial lines in the intervention period (P=.01). During the intervention period, devices were mentioned in 102 ED discharge reports (29.6%); a complete action plan was present in 35 cases (10.1%). The median duration of devices with an action plan was 73.0 hours and did not differ significantly between these periods (P=.45). A sensitivity analysis with 2 preintervention periods (period 1: July–December 2016; period 2: January–March 2017) did not reveal seasonality, and its results did not differ substantially from the primary analysis (data not shown).

In this intervention study aimed to reduce duration of catheterization through improved documentation, just one-third of all devices were mentioned in the ED discharge reports, and action plans were present in only 10% of cases. We observed no decrease in the duration of catheterization or insertion rates after our intervention, even if we analyzed only those devices with an action plan. Unexpectedly, we noted increased use of arterial lines over time, suggesting some variation in severity of illness between the 2 periods. The documentation rate achieved in this study was similar to the 22% reported in another study on urinary catheters in the ED.Reference Gokula, Smith and Hickner 2

In addition, both duration of urinary catheterization and insertion rates are in agreement with previously published results.Reference Schuur, Chambers and Hou 1 , Reference Gokula, Hickner and Smith 6 , Reference Greene, Fakih, Watson, Ratz and Saint 7

The low uptake of documentation, a limitation of this study, might reflect difficulties implementing preventive measures in the ED. Emergency physicians act in busy environments with multiple shifts and patient handovers where infection prevention efforts are not necessarily a priority. Additionally, awareness of device-associated complications may be low because they usually develop after discharge from the ED. Incorporating mandatory fields into the electronic medical record specifying indication and estimated duration might have improved the intervention uptake, but this option was not available.

In our institution, ED discharge reports remain the most important form of communication between the ED and admitting hospital floors. Although improved documentation neither reduced utilization nor duration of catheterization in this study, it reinforces physician involvement in placement decisions and should therefore be promoted.

In conclusion, recommending an action plan in the ED discharge report appears insufficient for reducing device utilization. Implementing other measures, such as mandatory device plans or daily device rounds, may be more promising.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Caspar Breitenstein and Barbara Schärer for their assistance with data extraction.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Potential conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

1. Schuur, JD, Chambers, JG, Hou, PC. Urinary catheter use and appropriateness in US emergency departments, 1995–2010. Acad Emerg Med 2014;21:292300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Gokula, RM, Smith, MA, Hickner, J. Emergency room staff education and use of a urinary catheter indication sheet improves appropriate use of foley catheters. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:589593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Saint, S, Wiese, J, Amory, JK, et al. Are physicians aware of which of their patients have indwelling urinary catheters? Am J Med 2000;109:476480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. progress! Sicherheit bei Blasenkathetern, Patient Safety Switzerland website. http://www.patientensicherheit.ch/dms/Progress-Programme/progress-_Blasenkatheter/Synopsis_20160426.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed April 28, 2018.Google Scholar
5. R Studio software website. https://www.rstudio.com. Accessed April 28, 2018.Google Scholar
6. Gokula, RR, Hickner, JA, Smith, MA. Inappropriate use of urinary catheters in elderly patients at a midwestern community teaching hospital. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:196199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Greene, MT, Fakih, MG, Watson, SR, Ratz, D, Saint, S. Reducing inappropriate urinary catheter use in the emergency department: comparing two collaborative structures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017:18.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Duration of Catheterization and Insertion Rates of Devices Placed in the Emergency Department

You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Promoting an action plan for devices in the emergency department—does it impact catheter duration?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Promoting an action plan for devices in the emergency department—does it impact catheter duration?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Promoting an action plan for devices in the emergency department—does it impact catheter duration?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *