Comparison of Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes Between Blood Collection Approaches: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: A systematic literature review was performed to understand the prevalence, advantages, and disadvantages of blood collection using different approaches (direct venipuncture or vascular access devices), and interventions used to mitigate the disadvantages. METHODS: The review included a broad range of study designs and outcomes. Database searches (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were conducted in March 2021 and supplemented by hand searching. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one publications were included. The data indicate that blood sampling from vascular access devices is common in emergency departments, trauma centers, and intensive care units. Studies showed that hemolysis and sample contamination place a considerable economic burden on hospitals. Significant cost savings could be made through enforcing strict aseptic technique, or using the initial specimen diversion technique. CONCLUSIONS: Hemolysis and sample contamination are far from inevitable in vascular access device-collected or venipuncture samples; both can be reduced through adherence to strict blood sampling protocols and utilization of the initial specimen diversion technique. Needle-free blood collection devices offer further hope for reducing hemolysis. No publication focused on the difficult venous access population; insertion success rates are likely to be lower (and the benefits of vascular access devices higher) in these patients.

The Role of the Registered Nurse in the Insertion of Nontunneled Central Vascular Access Devices.

As the result of requests from several state boards of nursing, the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) convened a task force to determine whether insertion of central vascular access devices by appropriately trained registered nurses (RNs) should be recommended. The task force consisted of RNs and advanced practice registered nurses with infusion therapy experience in various practice settings. The results are presented in INS' newest position paper, adopted by the INS Board of Directors, September 2017.

Vessel health and preservation (Part 1): a new evidence-based approach to vascular access selection and management.

Vascular access for the infusion of medications and solutions requires timely assessment, planning, insertion, and assessment. Traditional vascular access is reactive, painful, and ineffective, often resulting in the exhaustion of peripheral veins prior to consideration of other access options. Evidence suggests clinical pathways improve outcomes by reducing variations and establishing processes to assess and coordinate care, minimizing fragmentation and cost. Implementation of a vascular access clinical pathway leads to the intentional selection of the best vascular access device for the patient specific to the individual diagnosis, treatment plan, current medical condition, and the patient's vessel health (1). The Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) programme incorporates evidence-based practices focused on timely, intentional proactive device selection implemented within 24 hours of admission into any acute facility. VHP is an all-inclusive clinical pathway, guiding clinicians from device selection through patient discharge, including daily assessment. Initiation of the VHP programme within a facility provides a systematic pathway to improve vascular access selection and patient care, allowing for the reduction of variations and roadblocks in care while increasing positive patient outcomes and satisfaction. Patient safety and preservation of vessel health is the ultimate goal.