Coblewerner8615

75; ASA PS 3 versus 1, RR 3.56; ASA PS 4 versus 1, RR 6.1), and emergency surgery (RR 2.16 compared with elective). Sedation and monitored anaesthesia care were associated with lower RRs (RR 0.49 and RR 0.73 versus GA, respectively). Inadequate airway assessment, poor judgement and poor planning appeared to be contributors to these events. Future teaching and research should focus on these areas to further improve airway management and patient safety.

The purpose of this study was to investigate ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous (UGPIV) supply usage practices by clinicians working in vascular access, in emergency departments (EDs), or in other roles.

In 2019, a voluntary cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey. Data collected included demographics, practice-oriented information, procedural activities, and supplies used for UGPIV insertions. Frequency distributions and results of Fisher's exact test and one-way analysis of variance were reported using R v.3.5.2.

A total of 26,649 surveys were distributed with a response rate of 5.5% (

= 1475). Forty-eight percent of respondents (

= 709) indicated that they worked in a vascular access role, 310 (21%) worked in an ED, and 455 (31%) categorized their role as other. Clinically meaningful differences existed in all variables for UGPIV procedures and supplies between departments (

< 0.0001) and in all care settings. Using an investigatorconstructed overall metric of supplies used, important differences were demonstrated between personnel supply use in vascular access roles and other roles (

< 0.0001) and personnel in EDs and other roles (

< 0.0001).

Use of supplies for UGPIV insertions varies by department. The variability in supply usage for UGPIV insertions revealed by this survey suggests a need for clinical education on guideline application and evaluation of compliance with policies to promote standardization of supplies for UGPIV insertion.

Use of supplies for UGPIV insertions varies by department. The variability in supply usage for UGPIV insertions revealed by this survey suggests a need for clinical education on guideline application and evaluation of compliance with policies to promote standardization of supplies for UGPIV insertion.

Real-time utilization of ultrasound to confirm peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement improves efficacy and reduces patient radiation exposure. We evaluated if novice ultrasound users could accurately confirm appropriate PICC tip location via ultrasound assessment.

A prospective data collection study was conducted in an academic center with an established PICC team. Novice ultrasonography users performed 2 echocardiographic views (subcostal and apical 4 chamber) and noted position of visible wire. The presence of central bubbles (visualized in the heart) after a saline infusion, as well as time to bubbles (push-to-bubbles) seen in all patients, was also recorded. selleck chemical Image quality and confidence in imaging acquisition was also recorded.

Twenty-eight patients between ages 0 and 18 were enrolled over the study period with mean patient age of 10 years and median weight of 34 kg. The quality of image acquisition was rated as great only 34-44%. The wire was visualized only 25% of the time. The mg PICC line positioning verification.

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are widely used, but failure is unacceptably common with up to 69% failing before treatment is complete. PIVC securement reduces failure, but the optimal way to achieve this is unclear. Tapes and supplementary securement products are widely used, however rigorous testing of these to reduce PIVC failure remains unexplored.

In adult medical-surgical wards at a tertiary hospital, this pilot randomized controlled trial tests standard care (bordered polyurethane dressing plus nonsterile tape over the extension tubing) against two securement interventions (intervention one standard care plus two sterile tape strips over the PIVC hub; intervention two intervention one plus a tubular bandage). Patients >18 years of age requiring a PIVC for >24 hours are eligible. Patients with laboratory-confirmed positive blood cultures within 24 hours of screening, known allergy to study products, current or high-risk of skin tear, or non-English speaking without interpreter are excluded. Sample size is 35 per trial arm, and central randomization is computer-generated with allocation concealed until entry. Patients and clinical staff cannot be blinded to treatment allocation. However, infection outcomes are assessed by a blinded investigator. Primary outcome is study feasibility. Secondary outcomes (PIVC failure, dwell time, skin adverse events, PIVC colonization, and cost) are compared between groups. Feasibility outcomes are reported descriptively.

Ethical approvals were received from Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/18/QRBW/44571) and Griffith University (2018/1000). Trial commencement was May 2019.

ACTRN12619000026123.

Ethical approvals were received from Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/18/QRBW/44571) and Griffith University (2018/1000). Trial commencement was May 2019. Trial registration ACTRN12619000026123.Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are extensively used in neonatal intensive and high-dependency care settings. These intravenous catheters provide medium to longer-term access to the circulatory system for the delivery of medications, parenteral nutrition and the like. Catheters are available in a variety of bespoke designs and materials, each with their unique characteristics, benefits and limitations. PICCs are frequently inserted in a sterile zone cot-side procedure, one that requires an advanced knowledge base, technical skill and training. This article relates some important practical advice around managing minor complications that can be encountered while using the modified Seldinger technique (MST) to insert neonatal PICCs, which can make this procedure a less stressful experience for both infants and health professionals.The following article was written after the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. On reflection of clinical practice during this time, it was noted by the ICU team that the majority of ventilated patients appeared to have lost weight during their stay. Unfortunately, there was no ability to weigh patients during the pandemic, so this weight loss was a subjective observation. Regardless, this observation lead the ICU dietitian to retrospectively audit prescribed versus delivered feed. It was found that only 10% of admissions received the prescribed daily volume of feed within the first 7 days of admission. A further 6% of admissions were within 10% of achieving daily prescribed target volumes. The main reasons for this were proning patients, high gastric residual volumes and the overwhelming nature of the pandemic. Three areas of practice have been highlighted that will improve feed delivery should a second wave occur. 1. A nasojejunal team comprising 20 members of the ICU multidiciplinary team will be established to insert bedside nasojejunal tubes in all ICU patients on admission.