Very well said, Gail Thanks
Darnell Roth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gail Sansivero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: INS standard # 37
On the issue of PICC placement, can we agree that there are many skilled
and compassionate practitioners who work in nursing, angio suites and
alternate care settings who do a good job? I think we can. And we
can probably agree that one approach does not necessarily fit all
clinical situations, no matter what the issue.
Let's also be careful to differentiate between opinion and fact in all
our discussions...be this PICC placement or errors. One of our
responsibilities as professionals is to carefully read anecdotal
reports, research studies and othe professional publications with an eye
to statistical rigor, adequate study design and potential bias.
Please note that the report mentioned included many areas outside of
radiology departments (such as cardiac cath labs).
Let's agree to healthy intellectual discussion on strategy, outcomes and
program development with an eye to critically evaluate reports which may
not be exactly what they seem.
Thanks
"Lynn Hadaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/30/06 6:43 PM >>>
I would rethink that position in light of the recent article in the
Washington Post reporting that medication errors that harm patients
are seven times more frequent in the radiological service than in
other hospital settings. This comes from an analysis by the USP. The
issue appears to be many communication failures when patients move to
this dept. So in my opinion, a PICC can and should be done at the
bedside to reduce the workload and burden on radiology depts while
they get control of this problem. I learned of this article through
MedScape but can not get back to that article to give an address.
Mike Cohen from ISMP is quoted in this article, so there could be
more information about this from other sources. Lynn
At 3:06 PM -0700 1/30/06, Kokotis, Kathy wrote:
I am beginning to believe all PICC lines should be placed in
radiology where there are:
PICC, Stick and Run teams
PICC lines placed with traditional peel-aways
PICC lines placed without Ultrasound
Radiology does it safer in those instances
If I were the patient in any of the above I opt for the radiology
placed PICC line
Kathy
________________________________
From: Lynn Hadaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 1/30/2006 1:23 PM
To: Kokotis, Kathy; Bev and Tim Royer; CAROLYN; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: INS standard # 37
Well Kathy, I think that you are still comparing apples and oranges
when you compare IR inserted PICCs to a nurse-inserted service. I
think you are comparing data from multiple studies without going
through the strict analysis processes required for a meta-analysis.
When we were looking at the published data for the standards, I nor
anyone else on the INS standards committee found an article of any
kind comparing PICCs inserted with the standard through the
introducer to PICCs inserted using MST. You may claim that you can
compare data from multiple studies but until it has gone through a
true meta-analysis process and the peer-reviewed publications
process, it can not be used as a reference in a document such as the
standards.
I really do not think anyone is arguing that the AC inserted PICCs
are better than the ones placed above the AC, so I think we are
making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one! Lynn
At 11:54 AM -0700 1/30/06, Kokotis, Kathy wrote:
I do not know if anyone read my last paper in the LITE spectrum but
I did address the two papers with looking at complications rates of
MST & US and upper arm placement vs nursing traditional insertions.
How did I do this. IR used upper arm and MST and ultrasound and
nursing used traditional tools. Phlebitis rates, thrombosis rates
were higher for nurisng group significantly.
If INS does not understand to this day that upper arm basilic
placement has a lower rate of complications and that usage of
portable ultrasound is highly recommended and evidence based in the
AHRQ government safety report than how can I defend practice that is
so out of date. I can defend what we do not easily as INS is not
reading the literature
My soap box is over. Get with the times. By the way from my
figures 45% of PICC lines are placed in nursing with MST and 100% in
radiology with MST. You do the math. The doctors are right and
more patient focused. Ultrasound is used 15% in nurisng insertions
and doctors use fluoro or ultrasound in 100% of cases. I don't know
about INS but standard of care dictates the usage of US or MST or
all PICC lines should be send to radiology to be placed. What do
you think of that one?
kathy
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Bev and Tim Royer
Sent: Sun 1/29/2006 10:02 AM
To: 'CAROLYN'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: INS standard # 37
When looking at this standard it is important to note that
Paragraphs II & III A and B which come before paragraph C state:
>A "Site selection criteria should be established in
organizational policies and procedures and practice guidelines."
B "Site selection should be determined per manufacturer's labeled
uses(s) and directions for device insertions."
To me, as a clinician, I am covered under paragraphs A & B if
placing in the upper arm using ultrasound imaging.
Currently there is very little scientific evidence based practice
published on the topic of comparing antecubital and upper placement
of PICCs. Most manuscripts, address increase in successful PICC
line placement rates in the upper arm using micro-introducer and
ultrasound imaging technology. Only antedotally is it mentioned
that there is a decrease in mechanical phlebitis and an increase in
patient and nursing satisfaction not having the PICC placed in the
region around the antecubital fossa.
The use of micro-introducers and ultrasound imaging with nursing is
still only a small percent of the total number of PICCs placed by
nursing. There are many facilities and agencies that place PICCs
using the traditional approach of sight and feel and place in the
antecubital fossa regional and report that they have good outcomes.
Nurses are good at what they do.
Antedotal evidence is OK and is considered but it is not considered
rigorous scientific study. Outcome data analysis carries a little
more weight and should be published more than it is in this area.
However, like everybody else in our field, our time is so involved
in patient care and management that publishing is low on our
priority list. Best would be research in this area involving a more
rigorous scientific study comparing both areas of placement
(antecubital fossa vs upper arm). Again our time is limited at work
and the time involved in getting an approved study through the IRB
at the facilities we work at and the time necessary to carry out the
study is very involved and time consuming. Nursing Research is not
a high priority for many institutions.
We all need to be tracking our data on PICCs and complications and
have the data published.
Bottom line here - "The Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice",
revised 2006 edition, cannot put a standard in that is not backed up
by rigorous scientific study even though antedotally we see better
outcomes. It has been published over and over again that nurses can
place PICC lines safely in the antecubital fossa region.
Timothy Royer, BSN, CRNI
Nurse Manager / Vascular Access / Diagnostic Service
VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Seattle / Tacoma, WA
Disclaimer - This are my personal beliefs and do not represent the
institution I work at.
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CAROLYN
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: INS standard # 37
# 37 Site Selection - Practice Criteria: II Peripheral-Midline and
III PICC it states:
Site selection should be routinely initiated in the region of the
antecubital fossa; veins that should be considered for cannulation
are the basilic, median cubital, cephalic, and the brachial.
When we use ultrasound we are hardly ever placed in the antecubital
fossa because of the larger catheters being required, increase in
antecubital complications because of movement and of course patient
comfort.
What are the legal implications of this in court by not using the
antecubital for placement? Thanks
Upgrade Your Email - Click here!
<>
--
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RNC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
http://www.hadawayassociates.com
office 770-358-7861
--
Lynn Hadaway, M.Ed., RNC, CRNI
Lynn Hadaway Associates, Inc.
126 Main Street, PO Box 10
Milner, GA 30257
http://www.hadawayassociates.com
office 770-358-7861
-----------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain
confidential information that is protected by law and is for the
sole use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
replying to this email and destroying all copies of the
communication and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying,
distribution of, or reliance upon the contents of this email and
attachments is strictly prohibited. To contact Albany Medical
Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on
the Internet at www.amc.edu.
