• Thomas W Conlon, Adam S Himebauch, Anne Marie Cahill, Blair M Kraus, Chinonyerem R Madu, Mark D Weber, Carol A Czajka, Ruby L Baker, Torron M Brinkley, Melanie D Washington, Anne Marie Frey, Eileen M Nelson, Cara T Jefferies, Charlotte Z Woods-Hill, Heather A Wolfe, and Daniela H Davis.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
• Pediatr Crit Care Me. 2019 Jan 1; 20 (1): 71-78.

ObjectivesTo create a bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service to increase placement of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter in PICU patients.DesignTwo-phase observational, pre-post design.SettingSingle-center quaternary noncardiac PICU.PatientsAll patients admitted to the PICU.InterventionsFrom June 1, 2015, to May 31, 2017, a bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service team was created (phase I) and expanded (phase II) as part of a quality improvement initiative. A multidisciplinary team developed a PICU peripherally inserted central catheter evaluation tool to identify amenable patients and to suggest location and provider for procedure performance. Outcome, process, and balancing metrics were evaluated.Measurements And Main ResultsBedside peripherally inserted central catheter service placed 130 of 493 peripherally inserted central catheter (26%) resulting in 2,447 hospital central catheter days. A shift in bedside peripherally inserted central catheter centerline proportion occurred during both phases. Median time from order to catheter placement was reduced for peripherally inserted central catheters placed by bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service compared with placement in interventional radiology (6 hr [interquartile range, 2-23 hr] vs 34 hr [interquartile range, 19-61 hr]; p < 0.001). Successful access was achieved by bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service providers in 96% of patients with central tip position in 97%. Bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service central line-associated bloodstream infection and venous thromboembolism rates were similar to rates for peripherally inserted central catheters placed in interventional radiology (all central line-associated bloodstream infection, 1.23 vs 2.18; p = 0.37 and venous thromboembolism, 1.63 vs 1.57; p = 0.91). Peripherally inserted central catheters in PICU patients had reduced in-hospital venous thromboembolism rate compared with PICU temporary catheter in PICU rate (1.59 vs 5.36; p < 0.001).ConclusionsBedside peripherally inserted central catheter service implementation increased bedside peripherally inserted central catheter placement and employed a patient-centered and timely process. Balancing metrics including central line-associated bloodstream infection and venous thromboembolism rates were not significantly different between peripherally inserted central catheters placed by bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service and those placed in interventional radiology.

21 keywords...

hide…