Article Rickard, C. M., McCann, D., Munnings, J., & McGrail, M. R. (2010). Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Medicine, 853. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-53
Background Information The purpose of this article was to study if only changing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated verses every 72-96 hours was beneficial in regards to cost, patient outcomes, and staff workload. This subject made sense to this author as a practicing nurse on an inpatient oncology unit that manages all intravenous access sites. As a practicing nurse, it was not a rational process. This author often questioned discontinuing an access site when there was no evidence of clinical necessity. The authors indicated that peripheral intravenous catheters are the most common invasive treatment that patients experience while hospitalized. As an invasive procedure, the authors note that there is a risk of phlebitis and bloodstream bacterial infections. Phlebitis is indicated if there is pain, redness, or swelling at the site due to irritation from the catheter. The CDC currently recommends replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters every 72-96 hours. The authors reference previous studies indicating that the longer the need for treatment requiring a catheter the greater the risk of developing phlebitis versus the length of time one catheter is left in place. Using this information, the authors were compelled to challenge current recommendations of the CDC through a randomized controlled equivalent study. The authors’ use of a well structured purpose statement and introduction gave rise to my interest in reading this article.
Review of Literature The authors reviewed four randomized control trials that spanned from 2007