Appraising the quality of guidelines for peripheral arterial catheters care: A systematic review of reviews |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China;2. Special Geriatrics Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Third Affiliated Hospital, Beijing, China;1. Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research – Eastern Health Partnership, 2/5 Arnold St, Box Hill, Victoria, 3128, Australia;2. Deakin University: School of Nursing and Midwifery and Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research in the Institute for Health Transformation, 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia;3. Eastern Health, Arnold Street, Box Hill, Victoria, 3128, Australia;4. Eastern Health Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 5 Arnold St, Box Hill, Victoria, 3128, Australia;1. KU Leuven, Faculty of Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Group for Rehabilitation in Internal Disorders, Leuven, Belgium;2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium;3. Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Physiotherapy, University Hospital Puerta de Hierrro Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain;4. KU Leuven, Division of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Leuven, Belgium;1. Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia;2. School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;3. Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;4. CCRE Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;5. Centre for Integrated Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;6. Melbourne Academic Centre for Health, Melbourne, Australia;7. General Surgery and Gastroenterology Clinical Institute, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia;8. Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Australia;9. Department of Intensive Care, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia;1. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;2. Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia;3. Child Health Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;4. School of Nursing and Midwifery Griffith University, Queensland, Australia;5. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit Queensland Children''s Hospital, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;6. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;7. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children''s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;8. Murdoch Children''s Research Institute, Victoria, Australia;9. Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;10. Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, Melbourne, Australia;11. School of Nursing, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;12. Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Queensland Children''s Hospital, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;13. Perioperative & Critical Care Center for Outcomes Research (PC-CORE), USA;14. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care & Pain Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Boston Children''s Hospital, USA;15. Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA;p. Infection Management, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Qld, Australia;q. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia;1. Department of Emergency, First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China;2. State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, National Clinical Research Center of Kidney Diseases, General Hospital of People''s Liberation Army, Beijing, 100853, China;3. National Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China;4. Department of Interventional Radiology, The Fifth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, People''s Republic of China;5. Department of Hematology, Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China;6. Department of Emergency Medicine, General Hospital of Northern Theatre Command, 83 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China;7. Medical Information Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China;8. Department of Emergency, Hainan Hospital of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Sanya, 572000, China;1. Nursing Care Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran;2. Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran;3. Student Research Committee, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran;4. Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;5. Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;6. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionCatheter-related bloodstream infections are among the most critical adverse events in critical patients with peripheral arterial catheters (ACs). Adherence to evidence-based guidelines can prevent and reduce arterial bloodstream infections.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to assess clinical practice guidelines for AC care and analyse methodological factors related to their development for effective dissemination and implementation in clinical practice.Review method usedThis was a systematic review of guidelines.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, and WANFANG databases from inception until September 2021 and evaluated websites of organisations that complied or produced guidelines.Review methodsA comprehensive list of guidelines for ACs care was included. We excluded incomplete guidelines, guidelines translated in other languages, duplicate publications, and summaries of multiple guidelines. Two reviewers independently extracted and collected the data, and three authors conducted quality assessments independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, Second Edition (AGREE II) tool. The intraclass correlation coefficient (two-way random) with a 95% confidence interval was used to evaluate the concordance between reviewers.ResultsOf the 738 total publications screened, seven were selected for evaluation. The concordance between observers was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.9, P < 0.001). Most guidelines (4/6) were developed in the United States and the United Kingdom. The median scores for the six domains were 89.0%, 65.5%, 58.0%, 86.0%, 65.0%, and 86.0%. The domains of stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability had the lowest scores. Guidelines by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence showed the highest quality.ConclusionsThe guidelines we included scored poorly on crucial domains (rigour of development, applicability, and stakeholder involvement). Most of the current recommendations on ACs were included in the guidelines for vascular catheter–related bloodstream infections. Therefore, targeted guidelines created specifically for ACs are warranted to reduce the incidence of catheter-related complications and ensure patient safety. |
| |
| Keywords: | Critical care Intensive care units Arterial catheters Guideline Systematic review |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
