A 4-arm randomized controlled pilot trial of innovative solutions for jugular central venous access device securement in 221 cardiac surgical patients.

PURPOSE: To improve jugular central venous access device (CVAD) securement, prevent CVAD failure (composite: dislodgement, occlusion, breakage, local or bloodstream infection), and assess subsequent trial feasibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study design was a 4-arm, parallel, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, pilot trial. Patients received CVAD securement with (i) suture+bordered polyurethane (suture + BPU; control), (ii) suture+absorbent dressing (suture + AD), (iii) sutureless securement device+simple polyurethane (SSD+SPU), or (iv) tissue adhesive+simple polyurethane (TA+SPU). Midtrial, due to safety, the TA+SPU intervention was replaced with a suture + TA+SPU group. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were randomized with 2 postrandomization exclusions. Central venous access device failure was as follows: suture + BPU controls, 2 (4%) of 55 (0.52/1000 hours); suture + AD, 1 (2%) of 56 (0.26/1000 hours, P=.560); SSD+SPU, 4 (7%) of 55 (1.04/1000 hours, P=.417); TA+SPU, 4 (17%) of 23 (2.53/1000 hours, P=.049); and suture + TA+SPU, 0 (0%) of 30 (P=.263; intention-to-treat, log-rank tests). Central venous access device failure was predicted (P<.05) by baseline poor/fair skin integrity (hazard ratio, 9.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-79.9) or impaired mental state at CVAD removal (hazard ratio, 14.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-68.4). CONCLUSIONS: Jugular CVAD securement is challenging in postcardiac surgical patients who are coagulopathic and mobilized early. TA+SPU was ineffective for CVAD securement and is not recommended. Suture + TA+SPU appeared promising, with zero CVAD failure observed. Future trials should resolve uncertainty about the comparative effect of suture + TA+SPU, suture + AD, and SSD+SPU vs suture + BPU.

Nursing team leader handover in the intensive care unit contains diverse and inconsistent content: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite a proliferation of evidence and the development of standardised tools to improve communication at handover, evidence to guide the handover of critical patient information between nursing team leaders in the intensive care unit is limited. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to determine the content of information handed over during intensive care nursing team leader shift-to-shift handover. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: A 21-bed medical/surgical adult intensive care unit specialising in cardiothoracic surgery at a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Senior nurses (Grade 5 and 6 Registered nurses) working in team leader roles, employed in the intensive care unit were sampled. METHOD: After obtaining consent from nursing staff, team leader handovers were audiotaped over 20 days. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis. The frequency of content discussed at handover that fell within the a priori categories of the ISBAR schema (Identify-Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation) was calculated. RESULTS: Forty nursing team leader handovers were recorded resulting in 277 patient handovers and a median of 7 (IQR 2) patients discussed at each handover. The majority of nurses discussed the Identity (99%), Situation (96%) and Background (88%) of the patient, however Assessment (69%) content was varied and patient Recommendations (60%) were discussed less frequently. A diverse range of additional information was discussed that did not fit into the ISBAR schema. CONCLUSIONS: Despite universal acknowledgement of the importance of nursing team leader handover, there are no previous studies assessing its content. Study findings indicate that nursing team leader handovers contain diverse and inconsistent content, which could lead to inadequate handovers that compromise patient safety. Further work is required to develop structured handover processes for nursing team leader handovers.