Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/2569
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBrown, E.en
dc.contributor.authorBernstein, S. J.en
dc.contributor.authorRickard, C. M.en
dc.contributor.authorCooke, M.en
dc.contributor.authorKleidon, Ten
dc.contributor.authorUllman, Amandaen
dc.contributor.authorChopra, V.en
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-07T23:32:53Z-
dc.date.available2022-11-07T23:32:53Z-
dc.date.issued2020en
dc.identifier.citation145 , 2020, p. S233-S242en
dc.identifier.otherRISen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dora.health.qld.gov.au/qldresearchjspui/handle/1/2569-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology undertaken to provide guidance on the appropriateness, as well as inappropriateness, of vascular access device selection, characteristics, and insertion technique for pediatric patients. METHODS: The RAND Corporation–University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used. After definition of key terms and scope, a systematic review of the pediatric vascular access literature was undertaken. Clinical scenarios were developed to reflect the common indications for vascular access across pediatric health care. These were sectioned according to (1) device selection, (2) device characteristics, and (3) insertion technique. An interdisciplinary panel of experts (N = 14) consisting of leading experts representing diverse pediatric clinical disciplines including anesthesiology, cardiology and cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency, general surgery, hematology and oncology, hospital medicine, infectious disease, interventional radiology, pharmacology, regional pediatric hospitalist, and vascular access nursing specialties was convened. The scenarios were rated for appropriateness by the panel over 2 rounds (1 [highly inappropriate] to 9 [highly appropriate]). Round 1 ratings were completed anonymously and independently by panel members and classified into 3 levels of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate, or disagreement. For round 2, panelists met in-person to discuss the round 1 ratings and independently rerated the indications. All indications were reclassified into 3 levels of appropriateness or disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: The RAND Corporation–University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method provides a rigorous, in-depth and transparent methodology to develop the first appropriateness criteria for the selection of pediatric vascular access devices in a range of patient groups.L20070126642020-08-06 <br />2020-09-02 <br />en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofPediatricsen
dc.titleDeveloping appropriateness criteria for pediatric vascular accessen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1542/peds.2019-3474Gen
dc.subject.keywordsinfusion therapyen
dc.subject.keywordspatient risken
dc.subject.keywordspatient safetyen
dc.subject.keywordspriority journalen
dc.subject.keywordsrisk factoren
dc.subject.keywordssystematic reviewen
dc.subject.keywordsvascular accessen
dc.subject.keywordsevidence based practiceen
dc.subject.keywordsarticleen
dc.subject.keywordscathetervascular access deviceen
dc.subject.keywordshumanen
dc.subject.keywordschilden
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L2007012664&from=exporthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3474G |en
dc.identifier.risid2454en
dc.description.pagesS233-S242en
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.languageiso639-1en-
Appears in Sites:Children's Health Queensland Publications
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

130
checked on Apr 17, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DORA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.