| Summary: | Abstract Background Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are essential for successful administration of intravenous treatments. However, insertion failure and PIVC complications are common and negatively impact patients’ health-outcomes and experiences. We aimed to assess whether generic (not condition-specific) quality of life and experience measures were suitable for assessing outcomes and experiences of patients with PIVCs. Methods We undertook a secondary analysis of data collected on three existing instruments within a large randomised controlled trial, conducted at two adult tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Instruments included the EuroQol Five Dimension - Five Level (EQ5D-5L), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Treatment Satisfaction – General measure (FACIT-TS-G, eight items), and the Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set (AHPEQS, 12 items). Responses were compared against two clinical PIVC outcomes of interest: all-cause failure and multiple insertion attempts. Classic descriptives were reported for ceiling and floor effects. Regression analyses examined validity (discrimination). Standardised response mean and effect size (ES) assessed responsiveness (EQ5D-5L, only). Results In total, 685 participants completed the EQ5D-5L at insertion and 526 at removal. The FACIT-TS-G was completed by 264 and the AHPEQS by 262 participants. Two FACIT-TS-G items and one AHPEQS item demonstrated ceiling effect. Instruments overall demonstrated poor discrimination, however, all-cause PIVC failure was significantly associated with several individual items in the instruments (e.g., AHPEQS, ‘unexpected physical and emotional harm’). EQ5D-5L demonstrated trivial (ES < 0.20) responsiveness. Conclusions Initial investigation of an existing health-related quality of life measure (EQ5D-5L) and two patient-reported experience measures (FACIT-TS-G; AHPEQS) suggest they are inadequate (as a summary measure) to assess outcomes and experiences for patients with PIVCs. Reliable instruments are urgently needed to inform quality improvement and benchmark standards of care.
|
|---|