Interventions to reduce peripheral intravenous catheter failure: An international e-Delphi consensus on relevance and feasibility of implementation

Background: Around 1 billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) fail annually worldwide before prescribed intravenous therapy is completed, resulting in avoidable complications, dissatisfaction, and avoidable costs surging to similar to euro4bn. We aimed to provide an international consensus on relevance and feasibility of clinical practice guideline recommendations to reduce PIVC failure. Methods: e-Delphi study with three rounds through an online questionnaire from March-September 2020 recruiting a multispecialty panel formed by clinicians, managers, academic researchers, and experts in implementation from seven developed and three developing countries, reflecting on experience in PIVC care and implementation of evidence. Further, we included a panel of chronic patients with previous experience in the insert, maintenance, and management of PIVC and intravenous therapy from Ireland and Spain as public and patient involvement (PPI) panel. All experts and patients scored each item on a 4-point Likert scale to assess the relevance and feasibility. We considered consensus descriptor in which the median was 4 with less than or equal to 1,5 interquartile intervals.Findings: Over 90% participants (16 experts) completed the questionnaire on all rounds and 100% PPI (5 patients) completed round 1 due to high consensus they achieved. Our Delphi approach included 49 descriptors, which resulted in an agreed 30 across six domains emerged from the related to (i) general asepsis and cutaneous antisepsis (n = 4), (ii) catheter adequacy and insertion (n = 3), (iii) catheter and catheter site care (n = 6), (iv) catheter removal and replacement strategies (n = 4), (v) general principles for catheter management (n = 10), and (vi) organisational environment (n = 3). Conclusion: We provide an international consensus of relevant recommendations for PIVC, deemed feasible to implement in clinical settings. In addition, this methodological approach included substantial representation from clinical experts, academic experts, patient and public expertise, mitigating uncertainty