Article Text

PDF
Improving PICC use and outcomes in hospitalised patients: an interrupted time series study using MAGIC criteria
  1. Lakshmi Swaminathan1,
  2. Scott Flanders2,
  3. Mary Rogers2,
  4. Yvonne Calleja3,
  5. Ashley Snyder2,
  6. Rama Thyagarajan3,
  7. Priscila Bercea3,
  8. Vineet Chopra2
  1. 1Internal Medicine, Beaumont Hospital Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, USA
  2. 2Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  3. 3Infection Prevention and Control, Beaumont Hospital, Dearborn, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lakshmi Swaminathan, Beaumont Hospital Dearborn, Dearborn, MI 48124, USA; lakshmi.swaminathan{at}beaumont.org

Abstract

Background Although important in clinical care, reports of inappropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use are growing.

Objective To test whether implementation of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) can improve PICC use and patient outcomes.

Design Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series design at one study site with nine contemporaneous external controls.

Setting Ten hospitals participating in a state-wide quality collaborative from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2016.

Patients 963 hospitalised patients who received a PICC at the study site vs 6613 patients at nine control sites.

Intervention A multimodal intervention (tool, training, electronic changes, education) derived from MAGIC.

Measurements Appropriateness of PICC use and rates of PICC-associated complications. Segmented Poisson regression was used for analyses.

Results Absolute rates of inappropriate PICC use decreased substantially at the study site versus controls (91.3% to 65.3% (−26.0%) vs 72.2% to 69.6% (−2.6%); P<0.001). After adjusting for underlying trends and patient characteristics, however, a marginally significant 13.8% decrease in inappropriate PICC use occurred at the study site (incidence rate ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.048)); no change was observed at control sites. While the incidence of all PICC complications decreased to a greater extent at the study site, the absolute difference between controls and intervention was small (33.9% to 26.7% (−7.2%) vs 22.4% to 20.8% (−1.6%); P=0.036).

Limitations Non-randomised design limits inference; the most effective component of the multimodal intervention is unknown; effects following implementation were modest.

Conclusions In a multihospital quality improvement project, implementation of MAGIC improved PICC appropriateness and reduced complications to a modest extent. Given the size and resources required for this study, future work should consider cost-to-benefit ratio of similar approaches.

  • healthcare quality improvement
  • hospital medicine
  • implementation science

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 10.13039/100000133, 1-K08HS022835-01.

  • Competing interests SF discloses royalties from Wiley Publishing; honoraria for various talks at hospitals as a visiting professor; grants from CDC Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; and expert witness testimony. All other authors disclose no conflicts.

  • Ethics approval University of Michigan Medical School. Since the purpose of this state-wide collaborative is to measure and improve the quality of existing care practices, this study was assigned a ’not regulated' status based on hospital-specific IRB criteria.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.