Introduction: Peripheral intravenous cannulation is the preferred method to obtain vascular access, but not always successful on the first attempt. Evidence on the impact of the intravenous catheter itself on the success rate is lacking. Faster visualization of blood flashback into the catheter, as a result of a notched needle, is thought to increase first attempt success rate. The current study aimed to assess if inserting a notched peripheral intravenous catheter will increase first attempt cannulation success up to 90%, when compared to inserting a catheter without a notched needle. Design: In this block-randomized trial, adult patients in the intervention group got a notched peripheral intravenous catheter inserted, patients in the control group received a traditional non-notched catheter. The primary objective was the first attempt success rate of peripheral intravenous cannulation. Intravenous cannulation was performed according to practice guidelines and hospital policy. Results: About 328 patients were included in the intervention group and 330 patients in the control group. First attempt success was 85% and 79% for the intervention and control group respectively. First attempt success was remarkably higher in the intervention group regarding patients with a high risk for failed cannulation (29%), when compared to the control group (10%). Conclusion: This study was unable to reach a first attempt success of 90%, although first attempt cannulation success was higher in patients who got a notched needle inserted when compared to those who got a non-notched needle inserted, unless a patients individual risk profile for a difficult intravenous access.
MULTIFILE
Objective: International guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for all patients with intermittent claudication (IC), yet primary endovascular revascularisation (ER) might be more effective in patients with iliac artery obstruction. Methods: This was a multicentre RCT including patients with IC caused by iliac artery stenosis or occlusion (NCT01385774). Patients were allocated randomly to SET or ER stratified for maximum walking distance (MWD) and concomitant SFA disease. Primary endpoints were MWD on a treadmill (3.2 km/h, 10% incline) and disease specific quality of life (VascuQol) after one year. Additional interventions during a mean follow up of 5.5 years were recorded. Results: Between November 2010 and May 2015, 114 patients were allocated to SET, and 126 to ER. The trial was terminated prematurely after 240 patients were included. Compliance with SET was 57/114 (50%) after six months. Ten patients allocated to ER (8%) did not receive this intervention. One year follow up was complete for 90/114 (79%) SET patients and for 104/126 (83%) ER patients. The mean MWD improved from 187 to 561 m in SET patients and from 196 to 574 m in ER patients (p =.69). VascuQol sumscore improved from 4.24 to 5.58 in SET patients, and from 4.28 to 5.88 in ER patients (p =.048). Some 33/114 (29%) SET patients had an ER within one year, and 2/114 (2%) surgical revascularisation (SR). Some 10/126 (8%) ER patients had additional ER within one year and 10/126 (8%) SR. After a mean of 5.5 years, 49% of SET patients and 27% of ER patients underwent an additional intervention for IC. Conclusion: Taking into account the many limitations of the SUPER study, both a strategy of primary SET and primary ER improve MWD on a treadmill and disease specific Qol of patients with IC caused by an iliac artery obstruction. It seems reasonable to start with SET in these patients and accept a 30% failure rate, which, of course, must be discussed with the patient. Patients continue to have interventions beyond one year.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: This case study examines the use of an eHealth application for improving preoperative rehabilitation (prehabilitation). We have analysed healthcare professionals' motivators and drivers for adopting eHealth for a surgical procedure at academic medical facilities. The research focused on when and why healthcare professionals are inclined to adopt eHealth applications in their way of working? For this qualitative study, we selected 12 professionals involved in all levels of the organisation and stages of the medical process and conducted semi-structured interviews. Kotter’s transformational change model and the Technology Acceptance Model were used as analytical frameworks for the identification of the motivation of eHealth adoption. The findings suggest that contrary to Kotter’s change model, which argues that adoption of change is based on perceptions and feelings, the healthcare drivers are rational when it comes to deciding whether or not to adopt eHealth apps. This study further elaborates the observation made by the Dutch expertise centre on eHealth, Nictiz, that when the value of an eHealth pplication is clear for a stakeholder, the adoption process accelerates. Analysis of the motivations and drivers of the healthcare professionals show a strong relationship with an evidence-based grounding of usefulness and the responsibility these professionals have towards their patients. We found that healthcare professionals respond to the primary goal of improving healthcare. This is true if the eHealth application will innovate their work, but mainly when the application will improve the patient care they are responsible for. When eHealth applications are implemented, rational facts need to be collected in a study before deployment of eHealth applications on how these applications will improve the patient's health or wellbeing throughout their so-called medical journey for their treatment. Furthermore, the preference to learn about new eHealth applications from someone who speaks from authority through expertise on the subject matter, suggests adoption by healthcare professionals may be accelerated through peers. The result of this study may provide healthcare management with a different approach to their eHealth strategy. Future research is needed to validate the findings in different medical organisational settings such as regional healthcare facilities or for-profit centers which do not necessarily have an innovation focus but are driven by other strategic drivers.
DOCUMENT
