RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Optimal selection of vascular access devices is based on multiple factors and is the first strategy to reduce vascular access device-related complications. This process is dependent on behavioural and human factors. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour) model was used as a theoretical framework to organize the findings of this systematic review. METHODS/AIMS: To synthesize the evidence on determinants shaping the optimal selection of vascular access devices, using the COM-B behavioural model as the theoretical framework. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies which explore decision-making at the time of selecting vascular access devices. DATA SOURCES: The Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and EbscoHost databases were interrogated to extract manuscripts published up to 31 December 2021, in English or Spanish. RESULTS: Among 16 studies included in the review, 8/16 (50%) focused on physical capability, 8/16 (50%) psychological capability, 15/16 (94%) physical opportunity, 12/16 (75%) social opportunity, 1/16 (6%) reflective motivation and 0/16 (0%) automatic motivation. This distribution represents a large gap in terms of interpersonal and motivational influences and cultural and social environments. Specialist teams (teams created for the insertion or maintenance of vascular access devices) are core for the optimal selection of vascular access devices (75% physical capability, 62% psychological capability, 80% physical opportunity and 100% social opportunity). CONCLUSION: Specialist teams predominantly lead all actions undertaken towards the optimal selection of vascular access devices. These actions primarily centre on assessing opportunity and capability, often overlooking motivational influences and social environments. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: A more implementation-focused professional approach could decrease inequity among patients and complications associated with vascular access devices. IMPACT: Optimal selection of vascular access devices is the primary strategy in mitigating complications associated with these devices. There is a significant disparity between interpersonal and motivational influences and the cultural and social environments. Furthermore, specialized teams play a pivotal role in facilitating the optimal selection of vascular access devices. The study can benefit institutions concerned about vascular access devices and their complications. REPORTING METHOD: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: Optimal selection of vascular devices remains a growing yet unresolved issue with costly clinical and patient experience impact. Interventions to improve the optimal selection of vascular devices have focused on training, education, algorithms and implementation of specialist vascular teams; alas, these approaches do not seem to have substantially addressed the problem. Specialist vascular teams should evolve and pivot towards leading the implementation of quality improvement interventions, optimizing resource use and enhancing their role.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A vascular access team (VAT) was created in 2018 with the aim of improving vascular access and reducing complications associated with catheters. The impact of the introduction of a VAT in the insertion and maintenance of peripheral insertion central catheters (PICCs) was assessed. The cost-benefit associated with the use of a VAT was evaluated and the satisfaction of patients and professionals interacting with the VAT was measured. METHODS: In a prospective study, 275 PICCs inserted by the VAT were assessed for their impact on complications. PICCs were implanted with maximum barrier measures using an ultrasound with IC-ECG. Also, patient and professional satisfaction have been analysed thought a questionnaire over the phone or online, and hospital financial data was used to assess the cost impact of the insertion methodology followed by the VAT versus Anaesthesia Service. RESULTS: The thrombosis rate was 2.5% (7) and the bacteraemia rate was 1.1% (3). The use of the IC-ECG was correlated with a lower complication than the RX + IC-ECG (OR = 3.28, p = 0.021). In addition, there was a high level of perceived satisfaction for the patients surveyed and for the healthcare professionals involved in the care and management of these devices. The calculated saving for the implementation of the VAT was 61.81% compared with PICCs implanted in Anaesthesia Service. CONCLUSION: Low complication rates and high overall satisfaction scores in patients and professionals were observed, showing that a specialist VAT can have a positive impact in the insertion of PICCs and which also has a clear economic benefit.