Document review analyzes PIVC policies in Queensland, revealing low adherence to clinical standards and suggesting improvements for patient outcomes.
Objectives: To examine peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) policies across Queensland public health services, their underpinning evidence and alignment with the 2021 Australian PIVC Clinical Care Standard. Methods: Document review and analysis of public state and health service PIVC policies, procedures and guidelines across Queensland. Data were extracted using standardised forms, collated, reviewed and compared for each health service and the state overall. Document characteristics and underpinning evidence (e.g., references, supporting resources, alignment with 10 PIVC Standard Quality Statements) were analysed descriptively. Binary adherence (yes adherent, no not adherent, other) was assessed for the 10 PIVC Standard Quality Statements. Results: Documents included 17 health service procedures, one protocol and one statewide guideline (total n=19), released between 2015 and 2024. Most were PIVC-specific (90%), four had exceeded their planned update timepoint. Three had no references, but had supporting resources described, while one document had both. One provided neither references nor supporting resources. All documents had hyperlinks to other internal and/or external resources. Of 15 released after Standard publication (post-2021), 13 (86.7%) referred to the Standard. No individual documents adhered to all 10 Standard Quality Statements. None of the Quality Statements were met by all documents (adherence range 0-95%). Conclusions: Many PIVC policies lacked a strong evidence framework, and did not align with the minimum level of care expected in Australia. This likely impacts the quality of clinical care and patient outcomes. There is an urgent need for rationalisation and systemwide standardisation of policies to reduce variation and ensure clinical standards are met.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lovegrove et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: