* Abbreviations:
IV — : intravenous
MAGIC — : Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters
miniMAGIC — : mini Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters
Consider this scenario: an 8-month-old infant with osteomyelitis needs intravenous (IV) access for 3 weeks of antibiotics; what device will best ensure successful therapy and low risk of complications? Or consider this: a teenager with cystic fibrosis is hospitalized for the third time this year with an acute exacerbation. Despite multiple efforts by experienced clinicians, an IV catheter cannot be successfully placed in a peripheral vein. Frustrated, the nurse says, “Let’s just put in a peripherally inserted central catheter.” Is this the best choice for the patient?
These scenarios, and many more like them, occur for hundreds of pediatric patients in hospitals every day. Yet, the approach to these decisions is far from consistent.1 Ask a provider why they choose a specific device or consult a certain specialist for an IV access procedure, and you may hear, “That’s how I have always done it,” or “This is how I was trained.” In part, these monocentric styles have evolved as a result of evidence gaps in pediatric vascular access. Compared with adult populations, the evidence base for risk, benefits, and alternatives of IV …
Address correspondence to Amanda Ullman, PhD, RN, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Kessels Rd, Nathan, QLD4111, Australia. E-mail: a.ullman@griffith.edu.au