References

Abolfotouh M. A., Salam M., Bani-Mustafa A., White D., Balkhy H. H. Prospective study of incidence and predictors of peripheral intravenous catheter-induced complications. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2014; 10:993-1001

Brown M. M., Brown G. C., Sharma S., Landy J. Health care economic analyses and value-based medicine. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2003; 48:(2)204-223

Carr P. J., Rippey J. C., Budgeon C. A., Cooke M. L., Higgins N., Rickard C. M. Insertion of peripheral intravenous cannulae in the emergency department: factors associated with first-time insertion success. The Journal of Vascular Access. 2016; 17:(2)182-190

Chen J., Ou L., Hollis S. J. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research. 2013; 13:(1)

Claxton K., Briggs A., Buxton M. J., Culyer A. J., McCabe C., Walker S., Sculpher M. J. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: An opportunity not to be missed?. BMJ. 2008; 336:(7638)251-254

Cooke M., Ullman A. J., Ray-Barruel G., Wallis M., Corley A., Rickard C. M. Not” just” an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries. PloS One. 2018; 13:(2)

Coronini-Cronberg S., Appleby J., Thompson J. Application of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data to estimate cost-effectiveness of hernia surgery in England. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2013; 106:(7)278-287

Cuper N. J., de Graaff J. C., van Dijk A. T., Verdaasdonk R. M., van der Werff D. B., Kalkman C. J. Predictive factors for difficult intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012; 22:(3)223-229

Deshpande P. R., Rajan S., Sudeepthi B. L., Abdul Nazir, C. P. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2011; 2:(4)137-144 https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.86879

Elf M., Flink M., Nilsson M., Tistad M., von Koch L., Ytterberg C. The case of value-based healthcare for people living with complex long-term conditions. BMC Health Services Research. 2017; 17:(1)1-6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1957-6

Fendrick A. M., Smith D. G., Chernew M. E. Applying value-based insurance design to low-value health services. Health Affairs. 2010; 29:(11)2017-2021

Frost M. H., Reeve B. B., Liepa A. M., Stauffer J. W., Hays R. D. What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures?. Value in Health. 2007; 10:S94-S105

Giordano L. A., Elliott M. N., Goldstein E., Lehrman W. G., Spencer P. A. Development, implementation, and public reporting of the HCAHPS survey. Medical Care Research and Review. 2010; 67:(1)27-37

Haywood T. The cost of confusion: Healthcare reform and value-based purchasing. Healthcare Financial Management. 2010; 64:(10)44-49

Herdman M., Gudex C., Lloyd A., Janssen M., Kind P., Parkin D., Bonsel G., Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research. 2011; 20:(10)1727-1736

Howell D., Fitch M., Bakker D., Green E., Sussman J., Mayo S., Mohammed S., Lee C., Doran D. Core domains for a person-focused outcome measurement system in cancer (PROMS-Cancer Core) for routine care: A scoping review and Canadian Delphi Consensus. Value in Health. 2013; 16:(1)76-87

Larsen E., Keogh S., Marsh N., Rickard C. Experiences of peripheral IV insertion in hospital: A qualitative study. British Journal of Nursing. 2017; 26:(19)S18-S25 https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2017.26.19.S18

Marsh N., Webster J., Larsen E., Cooke M., Mihala G., Rickard C. M. Observational study of peripheral intravenous catheter outcomes in adult hospitalized patients: A multivariable analysis of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2018; 13:(2)83-89

Porter M. E., Teisberg E. O. Redefining health care: Creating value-based competition on results.: Harvard Business Press; 2006

Rickard C. M., Marsh N., Webster J., Runnegar N., Larsen E., McGrail M. R., Fullerton F., Bettington E., Whitty J. A., Choudhury M. A., Haitham T., Corley A., McMillan D. J., Fraser J. F., Marshall A. P., Playford E. G. Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The Lancet. 2018; 392:(10145)419-430 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31380-1

Sackett D., Richardson W., Rosenberg W., Haynes R. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM.: Churchill Livingstone Inc; 2000

Snilstveit B., Vojtkova M., Bhavsar A., Stevenson J., Gaarder M. Evidence & gap maps: A tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016; 79:120-129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.015

Squitieri L., Bozic K. J., Pusic A. L. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value in Health. 2017; 20:(6)834-836 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.02.003

Tremblay D., Roberge D., Berbiche D. Determinants of patient-reported experience of cancer services responsiveness. BMC Health Services Research. 2015; 15:(1)

Tricco A. C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O'Brien K. K., Colquhoun H., Levac D., Moher D., Peters M. D. J., Horsley T., Weeks L., Hempel S., Akl E.A., Chang C., McGowan J., Stewart L., Hartling L., Aldcroft A., Wilson M. G., Garrity C., Straus S. E. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 169:(7)467-473

van Deen W. K., Esrailian E., Hommes D. W. Value-based health care for inflammatory bowel diseases. Journal of Crohns & Colitis. 2015; 9:(5)421-427 https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv036

Wilson H., Gole J., Mishra M., Mishra J. Value based healthcare. Advances in Management. 2016; 9:(1)

Zingg W., Pittet D. Peripheral venous catheters: an under-evaluated problem. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2009; 34:S38-S42

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for peripheral venous catheters: a scoping review protocol

28 October 2021
6 min read
Volume 30 · Issue 19

Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this scoping review is to conduct a systematic search and establish the current state of evidence for tools and instruments used to measure self-reported outcomes and experiences, including satisfaction scores, specifically for peripheral venous access devices (PVADs).

Methods:

A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using medical databases including: MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (EbscoHost); PubMed (NCBI); and Scopus (Elsevier); Google (Scholar); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Experimental, and observational studies, published in English, after 1990 will be eligible for inclusion if they: consist of (i) a survey, instrument or tool that is designed to (ii) collect outcome, experience and/or satisfaction data, relating to PVAD insertion, care, maintenance and/or removal, among (iii) adult and paediatric participants.

Conclusions:

PVAD-specific patient-reported outcome and experience measures are necessary for researchers, clinicians and policy decision makers to explore more thoroughly the quality of PVAD care provided, and further inform health economic analyses in the context of quality improvement interventions for vascular access devices. This scoping review will establish the existence—or paucity—of instruments to measure these selfreported outcomes and experiences of PVADs, in order to guide value-based healthcare delivery into the future.

Healthcare delivery is currently experiencing a significant change from what was traditionally a volume-based model, to one that is based on the value of healthcare delivery (Squitieri et al, 2017). The aim of a value-based healthcare (VBHC) delivery model is to improve patient safety, quality of care and cost-efficiency of interventions (Elf et al, 2017) by: effectively engaging consumers (Wilson et al, 2016); improving care coordination (Chen et al, 2013); and, endeavouring to reduce purchasing costs (Haywood, 2010).

VBHC considers the benefits of care to patients relative to the costs of achieving these (eg staff, consumables). At a policy level, this involves a cost-utility analysis which, while more complex than standard economic analysis, has been adopted as core business for many healthcare systems, due to a high rate of healthcare inflation, in the context of finite resources (Brown et al, 2003). At the foundation of VBHC delivery is evidence-based medicine, which is the implementation of care that is supported by high-level evidence, carried out by skilled/expert clinicians, taking into account patient values and the perceived value of care provided (Brown et al, 2003; Svet al, 2000). For example, a high-cost procedure that demonstrates little benefit is not an efficient use of funds, while cost-saving poor-quality care is similarly inefficient (Porter and Teisberg, 2006). In practice, this has led to Value-Based Insurance Designs (relevant for primarily privatized health systems), which are aimed at minimizing both under-use and over-use of healthcare systems (Fendrick et al, 2010). Public health systems have similarly begun to implement this concept of value in their national systems, such as use in the assessment of pharmaceuticals prior to insurance (public or private) subsidization (Claxton et al, 2008).

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