Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Tirumandas, Madhuri
• Madaline, Theresa
• Weston, Gregory David
• Jain, Ruchika
• Figueredo, Jamie

Titel

Impact of Critical Care Consultation Requests for Avoidable Central Venous Catheters on Medical-Surgical Units

Ist Teil von

• Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020-10, Vol.41 (S1), p.s258-s258

Ort / Verlag

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background: Although central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in US hospitals have improved in the last decade, ~30,100 CLABSIs occur annually. 1,2 Central venous catheters (CVC) carry a high risk of infections and should be limited to appropriate clinical indications. 6,7 Montefiore Medical Center, a large, urban, academic medical center in the Bronx, serves a high-risk population with multiple comobidities. 8–11 Despite this, the critical care medicine (CCM) team is often consulted to place a CVC when a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) cannot be obtained by nurses or primary providers. We evaluated the volume of CCM consultation requests for avoidable CVCs and related CLABSIs. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed for patients with CCM consultation requests for CVC placement between July and October 2019. The indication for CVC, type of catheter inserted or recommended, and NHSN data were used to identify CLABSIs. CVCs were considered avoidable if a PIV was used for the stated indication and duration of therapy, with no anatomical contraindications to PIV in nonemergencies, according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). 6 Results: Of 229 total CCM consults, 4 (18%) requests were for CVC placement; 21 consultations (9%) were requested for avoidable CVCs. Of 40 CVC requests, 18 (45%) resulted in CVC placement by the CCM team, 4 (10%) were deferred for nonurgent PICC by interventional radiology, and 18 (45%) were deferred in favor of PIV or no IV. Indications for CVC insertion included emergent chemotherapy (n = 8, 44%) and dialysis (n = 3, 16%), vasopressors (n = 3, 16%), antibiotics (n = 2, 11%) and blood transfusion (n = 2, 11%). Of 18 CVCs, 9 (50%) were potentially avoidable: 2 short-term antibiotics and rest for nonemergent indications; 2 blood transfusions, 1 dialysis, 2 chemotherapy and 2 vasopressors. Between July and October 2019, 6 CLABSIs occurred in CVCs placed by the CCM team; in 3 of 6 CLABSI events (50%), the CVC was avoidable. Conclusions: More than half of consultation requests to the CCM team for CVCs are avoidable, and they disproportionately contribute to CLABSI events. Alternatives for intravenous access could potentially avoid 9% of CCM consultations and 50% of CLABSIs in CCM-inserted CVCs on medical-surgical wards. Funding: None Disclosures: None