References

Armenteros-Yeguas V, Gárate-Echenique L, Tomás-López M Prevalence of difficult venous access and associated risk factors in highly complex hospitalised patients. J Clin Nurs.. 2017; 26:4267-4275

Fields J, Piela N, Au A Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med.. 2014; 32:1179-1182

Sebbane M, Claret P, Lefebvre S Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the emergency department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med.. 2013; 44:299-305

Walsh G Difficult peripheral venous access: recognizing and managing the patient at risk. JAVA.. 2008; 13:198-203

Sou V, McManus C, Mifflin N A clinical pathway for the management of difficult venous access. BMC Nurs.. 2017; 16

Mason S, Watts A, Sheils S, Koorey D Improving access to HCV treatment: external jugular venepuncture can overcome problems with difficult venous access. Int J Drug Policy.. 2007; 18:433-436

Darke S, Ross J, Kaye S Physical injecting sites among injecting drug users in Sydney, Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend.. 2001; 62:77-82

Harris M, Rhodes T Hepatitis C treatment access and uptake for people who inject drugs: a review mapping the role of social factors. Harm Reduct J.. 2013; 10

Chopra V, Kuhn L, Ratz D Vascular nursing experience, practice knowledge, and beliefs: results from the Michigan PICC1 survey. J Hosp Med.. 2016; 11:269-75

Rosenthal K Tailor your IV insertion techniques special populations. Nursing. 2005; 35:36-41

Witting M, Schenkel S, Lawner B Effects of vein width and depth on ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous success rates. J Emerg Med.. 2010; 39:70-75

Egan G, Healy D, O'Neill H Ultrasound guidance for difficult peripheral venous access: systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J.. 2013; 30

Stolz L, Stolz U, Howe C Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access.. 2015; 16:321-326

Liu Y, Alsaawi A, Bjornsson H Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials. Eur J Emerg Med.. 2014; 21:18-23

Clements A, Grose J, Skirton H Experiences of UK patients with hepatitis C virus infection accessing phlebotomy: a qualitative analysis. Nurs Health Sci. 2014; 17:214-222

Harris M, Rhodes T Venous access and care: harnessing pragmatics in harm reduction for people who inject drugs. Addiction.. 2012; 107:1090-1096

Phifer T, Bridges M, Conrad S The residual central venous catheter track—an occult source of lethal air embolism. J Trauma.. 1991; 31:1558-1560

Mohanty C Air embolism through open hub of external jugular vein intravenous cannula. Turk J Emerg Med.. 2019; 19:117-119

Sheikh N, Unnunsia F Acute management of vascular air embolism. J Emerg, Trauma, Shock.. 2009; 2:180-185

Gordy S, Rowell S Vascular air embolism. Int J Crit Ill Inj Sci.. 2013; 3:73-76

Staniszewska S, Crowe S, Badenoch D The PRIME project: developing a patient evidence-base. Health Expect.. 2010; 13:312-322

Sidani S, Epstein D, Bootzin R Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure. Res Nurs Health. 2009; 32:419-431

Andrykowski M, Manne S Are psychological interventions effective and accepted by cancer patients? I. Standards and levels of evidence. Ann Behav Med. 2006; 32:93-97

Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17

Caelli K, Ray L, Mill J ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. Int J Qual Meth.. 2003; 2:1-24

Fusch P, Ness L Are we there yet?. Data saturation in qualitative research Qual Rep.. 2015; 20:1408-1416

Morse J Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res.. 2015; 25:1212-1222

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care.. 2007; 19:349-357

Guion L, Diehl D, McDonald DGainesville: Institute of Food and Agricultural Services; 2002

Fry F, Shawyer V, Endacott R Experience with phlebotomy for people with hepatitis C: a systematic review. Gastrointest Nurs.. 2016; 14:28-41

Goffman INew York: Simon and Schuster; 1963

Fife B, Wright E The dimensionality of stigma: a comparison of its impact on the self of persons with HIV/AIDS and cancer. J Health Soc Behav.. 2000; 41:50-67

Drazic Y, Caltabiano M Chronic hepatitis B and C: exploring perceived stigma, disease information, and healthrelated quality of life. Nurs Health Sci.. 2013; 15:172-178

Guirgis M, Nusair F, Bu Y Barriers faced by migrants in accessing healthcare for viral hepatitis infection. Intern Med J.. 2012; 42:491-496

Ialongo C, Bernadini S Phlebotomy, a bridge between laboratory and patient. Biochem Med.. 2016; 26:17-33

North Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2018

Zickmund S, Hillis S, Barnett M Hepatitis C virus-infected patients report communication problems with physicians. Hepatology.. 2004; 39:999-1007

Wilson B, McSherry W A study of nurses' inferences of patients' physical pain. J Clin Nurs.. 2006; 15:459-468

Harty-Golder B How many times should a phlebotomist try to draw blood?. MLO Med Labs Obs.. 2010; 42

Morse J, Niehouse LWalnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009

Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013

Acceptability of external jugular venepuncture for patients with liver disease and difficult venous access

23 January 2020
Volume 29 · Issue 2

Abstract

Background:

Difficult venous access (DVA) is common in liver patients requiring blood collection using traditional peripheral approaches. This study aimed to understand the experience of DVA for liver patients and the acceptability of peripheral venepuncture versus external jugular venepuncture (EJV). A secondary aim was to explore the impact of EJV on local resource utilization.

Methods:

Semistructured interviews with liver outpatients with DVA (n = 10) requiring venepuncture were firstly themed inductively. We then deductively applied the acceptability framework of Sekhon et al. as a further analytic lens. Audit data from DVA encounters (n = 24) allowed analysis of issues from multiple perspectives. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research reporting checklist guides this report.

Results:

Peripheral venepuncture had poor prospective, concurrent, and retrospective acceptability, requiring significant mental and physical preparation. Fear, stigma, pain and distress, poor continuity of care, and poor effectiveness led to service disengagement. While EJV caused initial trepidation, it had high concurrent and retrospective acceptability. The significant improvement in patient experience was corroborated by audit data for both procedure duration (5 versus 15 minutes) and first attempt success (100 versus 28.5%) for EJV versus peripheral venepuncture, respectively. While EJV required a recumbent position, it required less staff.

Conclusions:

EJV is highly acceptable to patients, using less time and staff resources. EJV protocols and staff training should be considered where DVA presentations are common. Individualized care plans and careful care coordination could divert DVA patients needing venepuncture to services that use EJV preferentially.

HIGHLIGHTS

Peripheral venepuncture results in fear, stigma, pain, & distress for those with DVA.

This poor acceptability of traditional venepuncture leads to service disengagement.

External jugular venepuncture is highly acceptable & improves resource utilization.

Venous access is a taken-for-granted aspect of contemporary disease management, yet for many people with complex health needs, obesity, diabetes, and/or a history of injecting drug use (IDU), venous access is time consuming and painful.1,2,3 Difficult venous access (DVA) is characterized by patient distress,2,4 veins that are difficult to visualize and palpate,5 and in our service, is defined by either 2 failed venepuncture attempts on a single occasion or multiple attempts on previous occasions.

As advanced practice nurses working in a tertiary gastroenterology/liver center, we identified DVA as a significant clinical problem. An earlier survey reported that over one-third of our liver outpatients experienced DVA, nearly one-quarter were reluctant to have venepuncture, and 12% felt bad or discriminated against. Of concern, 12% believed DVA prevented their access to therapy. Figures were worse for our drug health service, where 59% of respondents described DVA, 66% were reluctant to have venepuncture, and 36% felt bad or discriminated against.6

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Nursing and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for nurses. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content