Harnessing implementation science to optimize harm prevention in critically ill children: a pilot study of bedside nurse CLABSI bundle performance in the pediatric intensive care unit.

2020

2020 Aug 17

1527-3296

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and cost in hospitalized children. An evidence-based bundle of care can decrease CLABSI, but bundle compliance is imperfect. We explored factors impacting bundle performance in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) by bedside nurses.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Single-center cross sectional electronic survey of PICU bedside nurses in an academic tertiary care center; using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation) and TDF (theoretical domains framework) behavioral models to explore CLABSI bundle performance and identify barriers to compliance.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>We analyzed 160 completed surveys from 226 nurses (71% response rate). CLABSI knowledge was strong (capability). However, challenges related to opportunity were identified: 71% reported that patient care requirements impact bundle completion; 32% described the bundle as stressful; and CLABSI was viewed as the most difficult of all bundles. 75% reported being highly impacted by physician attitude toward the CLABSI bundle (motivation).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>PICU nurses are knowledgeable and motivated to prevent CLABSI, but face challenges from competing clinical tasks, limited resources, and complex family interactions. Physician engagement was specifically noted to impact nurse motivation to complete the bundle. Interventions that address these challenges may improve bundle performance and prevent CLABSI in critically ill children.</p>

10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.019

Am J Infect Control

32818579

Development and Implementation of a Bedside Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Service in a PICU.

2019

71-78

2019 01

1529-7535

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>To create a bedside peripherally inserted central catheter service to increase placement of bedside peripherally inserted central catheter in PICU patients.</p>

<p><strong>DESIGN: </strong>Two-phase observational, pre-post design.</p>

<p><strong>SETTING: </strong>Single-center quaternary noncardiac PICU.</p>

<p><strong>PATIENTS: </strong>All patients admitted to the PICU.</p>

<p><strong>INTERVENTIONS: </strong>From 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.</p>

<p><strong>MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: </strong>Bedside 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Bedside 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.</p>

10.1097/PCC.0000000000001739

Pediatr Crit Care Med

30234675