Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Table 2 Study outcomes (n = 119)

	VAS	Generalist	p value
	n = 69	n = 50	p value
PVC successfully inserted	69 (100)	50 (72)
Multiple insertion attempts^a	13 (19)	16 (35)
Number of insertion attempts^{a, b}	1.22	1.74
Reason for removal:
Treatment complete without complication	29 (42)	19 (38)
Treatment incomplete with complication	26 (38)	22 (44)
Treatment completed with complication	7 (10)	5 (10)
Routine re-site or theatre replacement	5 (7)	3 (6)
Insertion of a CVAD	2 (3)	1 (2)
Device failed	33 (48)	27 (54)	0.506^c
Positive blood count	0 (0)	2 (4)
Complication^d:
Phlebitis	19 (28)	10 (20)
Infiltration	13 (19)	9 (18)
Occlusion	7 (10)	9 (18)
Accidental removal	6 (9)	7 (14)
Unknown	0 (0)	1 (2)
Device days	152	118
Incidence rate of failure^{e, f}	217 (154–305)	228 (156–332)
Incidence rate ratio	Reference	1.05 (0.61–1.80)	0.924^g
Overall patient satisfaction^{h, i}
Insertion	9 (8–10)	7 (3.5–9)
Overall	7 (6–9)	4.5 (1.5–6)

Frequencies and column percentages shown, unless otherwise noted
^aSuccessfully inserted devices only
^bAverage shown
^cChi-squared test
^dMultiple responses allowed
^ePer 1000 device days
^fIncludes 95% confidence interval
^gLog-rank test
^hMedian (25th/75th percentiles) shown
ⁱ0 = not satisfied, 10 = satisfied
VAS vascular access specialist, n number of non-missing observations, PVC peripheral intravenous catheter, CVAD central venous access device

ISSN: 1745-6215