Do our IV catheter policies match what actually happens at the bedside?

Research
A 2026 global survey [1], launched through WoCoVA [2], asked 251 healthcare workers across 44 countries about their real-world knowledge and routine practice in IV catheter dressing, infection prevention, patency and locking.

What they found
Some practice aligned closely with published standards: 98% reported using a transparent semi-permeable dressing, and among staff using a 10 ml syringe, 79% reported the recommended push-pause flushing technique. Other areas showed marked variation: 65% described skin disinfection as "scrubbing" with considerable technique variation; needle-free connector disinfection agent and technique varied (70% alcohol reported by 53%, 2% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol by 50%, scrubbing by 73%); and 43% reported applying high force to the plunger when flushing. [1]

Standards lens
The current UK NIVAS standards [3] set out specific, checkable detail in exactly the areas the survey probes: a defined skin-decontamination technique with a stated 30-second contact time (Standard 10.5, confirmed against Standard 15.3), a named minimum 15-second contact time and agent for needle-free connector decontamination (Standard 18.1), and an explicit rationale for why syringe size affects flushing pressure and catheter damage risk (Standard 13.1).

From evidence to practice
A vascular access lead, educator or clinical champion reading this paper might reasonably ask, locally: is our skin-prep technique actually standardised and observed, not just written down? Do staff know the minimum contact time for needle-free connector decontamination, and is it actually timed? Is syringe size for flushing a policy line nobody checks, or an active competency check?

Questions for your service

  1. When staff describe skin decontamination as "cleaning" or "scrubbing," do they mean the same technique NIVAS specifies – back-and-forth, sized to the dressing, timed to 30 seconds, allowed to dry?
  2. Is needle-free connector decontamination actually timed (15 seconds), or is the wipe-and-go habit the real practice regardless of what the policy says?
  3. Is syringe size for flushing checked as a competency, or assumed because "everyone knows" not to use a small syringe?
  4. If you asked five staff to define "loss of patency" versus a "locked" catheter, would you get five consistent answers?
  5. Is your local training material dated against the current NIVAS edition, or against an older understanding of these standards?
  6. Where compliance is "observed" rather than "written into policy" – who actually checks, and how often?

No causal claim is made or implied here. This is a descriptive, cross-sectional, self-report survey; it identifies patterns in what staff report doing, not what caused any specific patient outcome, and it is not evidence that any training intervention (including VeinTrain's) changes those outcomes.

Evidence checked

[1] RESEARCH – Ruiz Hernandez, P. and Dupont, C. (2026). Global evaluation of healthcare workers' knowledge and practices in IV catheter management: cross-sectional survey. British Journal of Nursing, 35(14), S14-S23. doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2025.0547

[2] GLOBAL · WoCoVA – study launched via the WoCoVA Global Committee

[3] UK · NIVAS – Standards for Infusion Therapy and Vascular Access, 1st edition, 2026

Related reading