Pain Management for Vascular Access Procedures

Establishes requirements for evidence-based pain assessment and management during vascular access procedures across all patient populations, from neonates through adults.

policies•Jul 2024•Patient Safety

Pain Management for Vascular Access Procedures Policy

1. Policy Statement

It is the policy of this organization that pain associated with venipuncture and vascular access device insertion shall be systematically assessed using age-appropriate and developmentally suitable tools, and that evidence-based pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions shall be implemented for all patients across the lifespan, with particular attention to neonates, infants, children, and adults with needle phobia or cognitive impairment, to minimize procedural pain, reduce cumulative distress, and support first-attempt insertion success.

2. Purpose

This policy exists to:

  • Establish the standard that all patients undergoing venipuncture or vascular access device insertion are entitled to appropriate pain management
  • Define age- and developmentally appropriate pain assessment tools across the lifespan
  • Identify and require mitigation of institutional and clinician-level barriers to pain management implementation
  • Specify evidence-based nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions for neonates, infants, pediatric patients, and adults
  • Promote first-attempt success strategies that reduce cumulative procedural pain
  • Ensure patient and caregiver education regarding realistic expectations and available pain reduction strategies

3. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • All clinical personnel performing venipuncture, peripheral intravenous catheter insertion, central venous access device insertion, and other vascular access procedures
  • All care settings where vascular access procedures are performed, including acute inpatient, ambulatory, emergency, perioperative, intensive care, and home care settings
  • All patient populations, from premature neonates through elderly adults
  • Caregivers and parents present during vascular access procedures

4. Policy Requirements

4.1 Patient and Caregiver Education

4.1.1 Patients and caregivers shall receive clear information about realistic expectations regarding potential pain or discomfort associated with vascular access procedures prior to the procedure.

4.1.2 Patients and caregivers shall be actively engaged in shared decision-making to identify and implement pain reduction strategies.

4.1.3 Clinicians shall employ interventions that increase first-attempt success with vascular access device insertion. Research demonstrates that patient experience with vascular access management directly influences satisfaction with overall hospitalization, and that structured vascular access team approaches are associated with improved pain perception compared to placement by bedside nurses alone.123

4.2 Barriers to Pain Management

4.2.1 Clinicians shall identify and address institutional and individual barriers that influence the use of pain management strategies, including:45

  • Underestimation of procedural pain
  • Excessive focus on technical task completion over patient experience
  • Time constraints and workload pressures
  • Lack of standing orders or clinical protocols for pain management
  • Cost considerations

4.2.2 Organizations shall implement standing orders, clinical protocols, and sufficient supply availability to remove barriers to timely pain management for vascular access procedures.

4.3 Developmental Considerations and Long-Term Impact

4.3.1 Clinicians shall understand the neurobiological impact of procedural pain across developmental stages when selecting and implementing pain management strategies.678

4.3.2 Preterm and Neonatal Populations. Preterm infants possess sensitive, developing nervous systems. Research has identified long-term changes in response to pain and stress during preterm hospitalizations, including reduced white matter microstructure, altered subcortical gray matter development, and dorsal horn central desensitization. Pain management for all procedures in this population is a clinical imperative.910111213

4.3.3 Early and Middle Childhood. Repeated needle-related procedures during early to middle childhood significantly increase the risk of long-term consequences, including procedural anxiety and subsequent hospital avoidance behaviors.1415 Pain management shall be routinely implemented to reduce these risks.

4.3.4 Adolescent Populations. Adolescents experience comparable levels of pain and distress during peripheral intravenous catheter insertion as younger children, yet consistently receive fewer pain relief interventions. Clinicians shall provide equivalent pain assessment and management for adolescent patients.16

4.4 Pain Assessment by Developmental Stage

4.4.1 Clinicians shall use validated, age-appropriate pain assessment tools for all patients undergoing vascular access procedures.

4.4.2 Infants

4.4.2.1 Pain assessment in infants shall evaluate crying patterns, facial expressions, and body posture or limb movements using validated tools, including:

  • Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS)
  • Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)
  • Neonatal Pain Agitation and Sedation Scale (NPASS)
  • Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale
  • Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS)
  • Newborn Comfort Behavior Scale (NCBS)

4.4.3 Toddlers

4.4.3.1 Pain assessment in toddlers shall rely on behavioral observation, including facial expressions, bodily movement, and crying characteristics. The FLACC scale shall be used for this age group.

4.4.4 Preschool and School-Age Children

4.4.4.1 Children in this developmental stage shall be encouraged to self-report pain. The FACES® pain rating scale is validated for pediatric self-report. The FLACC scale may be used in conjunction with self-report for preschool-age children. School-age children may use numerical pain scales effectively.

4.4.5 Children with Intellectual Disabilities

4.4.5.1 Children with intellectual disabilities may have limited ability to communicate pain verbally and frequently experience greater pain and anxiety during needle-related procedures compared to children without disabilities. The FLACC scale shall be used for this population.

4.4.5.2 Clinicians shall not assume lower pain intensity in patients with intellectual disabilities based solely on limited verbal communication.17

4.4.6 Adults

4.4.6.1 Patient self-report shall be the primary and most valid indicator of pain in adult populations. Clinicians shall recognize that asking about pain in different ways may be necessary to obtain accurate assessment.

4.4.6.2 For adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment, validated tools including the Pain in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale and Doloplus 2 shall be used for pain assessment.18

4.5 Pain Management for Neonates and Infants

4.5.1 Every painful procedure performed on neonates and infants shall receive appropriate pain management. Pain management shall not be omitted on the basis of presumed tolerance or clinical urgency alone.

4.5.2 Parental Involvement in Neonatal Pain Management

4.5.2.1 When parents are present during painful procedures, their involvement in pain management shall be actively encouraged and supported.192021

4.5.2.2 Education provided to parents shall address infant pain responses and clarify the parental role in pain management.2223 Clinical teams shall consider timing of procedures and visitation policies to maximize opportunities for parental involvement.

4.5.3 Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Neonates and Infants

4.5.3.1 The following nonpharmacologic interventions shall be available and used for neonatal and infant procedural pain management:24257

  • Oral sucrose or glucose administration
  • Non-nutritive sucking using a pacifier
  • Breastfeeding during procedures
  • Olfactory and auditory stimulation
  • Skin-to-skin care (Kangaroo Care)
  • Therapeutic massage
  • Swaddling
  • Facilitated tucking
  • Acupressure
  • White noise, music, or lullabies

4.5.3.2 Research demonstrates that facilitated tucking, oral sucrose, and Kangaroo Care decrease both behavioral and physiologic pain responses when used alone or in combination in preterm infants.26272829302512

4.5.3.3 Evidence supports 25% dextrose as non-inferior to 24% sucrose for heel lancing in preterm infants.31 Repeating sucrose doses during heel prick procedures in preterm infants does not provide additional pain reduction benefit and is not required.32 Concurrent use of swaddling and sucrose demonstrates additive benefit for pain intensity reduction during venous blood sampling.33

4.5.4 Pharmacologic Considerations for Neonates and Infants

4.5.4.1 Lidocaine/prilocaine cream (EMLA) shall not be used in neonates. Evidence demonstrates this topical anesthetic is inferior to sucrose or breastfeeding for pain control, and significant safety concerns exist, including risk of methemoglobinemia and increased skin blanching.3435

4.6 Pain Management for Pediatric Patients

4.6.1 Parental Role and Participation

4.6.1.1 Parents shall be encouraged to take an active role in managing their child’s procedural pain. Research demonstrates that parental presence is beneficial for children’s pain response, particularly when parents successfully implement distraction techniques.1936

4.6.1.2 Parents shall be instructed not to restrain or forcibly “hold down” a child during procedures, as this approach may increase fear.37 Emphasis shall be placed on supportive “hugging” positioning and use of distraction techniques.

4.6.2 Distraction Techniques

4.6.2.1 Distraction techniques shall be used as a standard component of procedural pain management for school-aged children and children with cancer.3839404142 Effective distraction modalities include:

  • Television, DVDs, videos, computers, and tablets
  • Smartphones and video games
  • Virtual reality systems
  • Humanoid robots
  • Therapeutic clowning
  • Breathing exercises
  • Hypnosis
  • Age-appropriate toys

4.6.2.2 For toddlers specifically, peekaboo games, blowing bubbles, and reading books shall be offered as age-appropriate distraction modalities.43

4.6.3 Virtual Reality Applications

4.6.3.1 Virtual reality technology shall be considered for procedural pain management in pediatric populations including children ages 4–18 years,4445 children with kidney disease undergoing venipuncture,4647484950515253545556 patients receiving intrathecal pump refills,57 and pediatric oncology patients.

4.6.3.2 Virtual reality is generally well-tolerated; however, the risk of cybersickness shall be considered and monitored during use.47

4.6.4 Music Intervention

4.6.4.1 Music intervention shall be considered as an analgesic strategy for infants and children. Classical music, children’s music, and pop music have demonstrated the greatest impact on pain alleviation.5859 Delivery methods may include headsets, earphones, or environmental speakers.

4.6.5 Vibrating Cold Devices

4.6.5.1 Vibrating cold devices shall be available and used for procedural pain management in appropriate pediatric patients. These devices provide distraction, reduce anxiety, and decrease self-reported, parent-reported, and observer-reported pain through gate control mechanisms.6061626364

4.6.6 Additional Nonpharmacologic Approaches

4.6.6.1 Massage therapy may be used to alleviate distress associated with burns and cancer in pediatric populations.6566

4.6.6.2 Acupressure applied by a trained clinician shall be considered for reducing venipuncture pain in pediatric patients based on randomized controlled trial evidence.67

4.6.6.3 Application of ice for several minutes prior to venipuncture shall be considered as a cost-effective and efficacious pain reduction method.6869

4.6.7 Pharmacologic Interventions for Pediatric Patients

4.6.7.1 Topical anesthetics shall be used for pediatric venipuncture when preparation time permits. All topical anesthetics are effective for pain prevention during venipuncture in children per large randomized controlled trial evidence.70347172 Available options and their approximate onset times include:

  • 10% lidocaine spray: 5-minute application time
  • Lidocaine HCL 2% gel: onset at 5 minutes, duration 20–30 minutes
  • Lidocaine/prilocaine cream (EMLA): 60-minute application
  • Ethyl chloride spray: 5-second application
  • Lidocaine cream: 30-minute application

4.6.7.2 Topical lidocaine/prilocaine is more effective than subcutaneous needleless lidocaine for PIVC insertion; however, needleless lidocaine shall be considered when treatment delays are contraindicated.7374

4.6.7.3 Vapocoolant spray shall be considered as an option associated with significant pain reduction compared to placebo.75

4.7 Pain Management for Adult Patients

4.7.1 Needle Phobia Recognition

4.7.1.1 Clinicians shall recognize that some patients experience significant fear of needles (needle phobia) and that appropriate pain management strategies may reduce this fear response.14 Needle phobia shall be documented and addressed proactively.768

4.7.2 Nonpharmacologic Interventions for Adults

4.7.2.1 The following nonpharmacologic interventions shall be available and offered for adult procedural pain management:

  • Heat application: Heat packs applied before PIVC insertion reduce both pain and anxiety77
  • Cold therapy: Cold therapy before port needle removal is associated with reduction in pain and anxiety78
  • Aromatherapy: Inhalation aromatherapy has been associated with decreased pain during port needle access procedures79
  • Behavioral interventions: Distraction, relaxation techniques, breathing exercises, and hand massage80
  • Valsalva maneuver: The Valsalva maneuver can alleviate pain severity in appropriate non-cardiac patients8182; this technique shall be avoided in patients with retinopathy and intraocular lens implantation due to associated rise in intraocular pressure
  • Combined cold and vibration: Simultaneous application of cold and vibration has demonstrated effectiveness for both pain and anxiety reduction during intravenous catheterization64

4.7.3 Pharmacologic Interventions for Adults

4.7.3.1 Injectable anesthetics. Intradermal lidocaine shall be considered to provide local anesthesia prior to PIVC insertion. Two percent lidocaine demonstrates greatest efficacy.8384 Bacteriostatic saline containing benzyl alcohol possesses analgesic properties but is less effective than lidocaine.

4.7.3.2 Lidocaine buffered with saline provides comparable pain relief during PICC insertion to lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate.85

4.7.3.3 Topical anesthetics. Topical lidocaine/prilocaine (EMLA) is effective for adult venous cannulation pain.86 Intradermal injection of lidocaine using microneedle devices shall be considered for rapid local anesthesia when available.87

4.7.3.4 Alternative topical agents. Topical diclofenac and topical ketamine have both demonstrated efficacy in pain reduction during peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and may be considered as alternatives.888990

4.7.3.5 Vapocoolant spray. Vapocoolant spray shall be considered to reduce pain during PIVC insertion and blood collection. Clinicians shall inform patients that mild discomfort may occur during application.919275

4.7.3.6 Pre-treatment lidocaine technique. Application of room-temperature lidocaine (1–2 mL) to the skin prior to a 1% lidocaine subcutaneous injection for bedside procedures shall be considered, with particular benefit demonstrated for PICC insertion.8385

5. Compliance

5.1 Key Performance Indicators

  • Rate of age-appropriate pain assessment documentation prior to vascular access procedures (target: ≥95%)
  • Rate of pain management intervention documentation for pediatric vascular access procedures (target: ≥95%)
  • Rate of topical anesthetic use for elective pediatric venipuncture when preparation time permits (target: ≥80%)
  • Patient-reported satisfaction with pain management during vascular access procedures (measured by patient experience surveys)
  • Rate of parental involvement documentation for neonatal and infant vascular access procedures (target: ≥90%)
  • Incidence of EMLA use in neonates (target: 0%)
  • Rate of first-attempt PIVC insertion success (tracked by vascular access team)

5.2 Enforcement

Non-compliance with this policy shall be addressed through the organization’s standard performance improvement and professional accountability processes, including documentation audits, targeted education, peer feedback, and escalation to unit leadership as appropriate.

6. Exceptions

Exceptions to pain management requirements may occur in emergent clinical situations where immediate life-saving treatment is required and preparation time for pain management is not available. Any such exception shall be documented in the patient health record with clinical justification. Planned procedures shall not be exempted from pain management requirements on the basis of time constraints alone, and institutional workflow shall be designed to accommodate routine pain management for vascular access.

  • Vascular Access Device Selection and Insertion Policy
  • Vascular Access Device Insertion Policy
  • Peripheral Intravenous Access: Difficult Intravenous Access (DIVA) Protocol
  • Informed Consent for Vascular Access Policy
  • Patient Education — Infusion Therapy Policy
  • Neonatal Intensive Care Pain Management Protocol
  • Pediatric Procedural Sedation Policy

8. Revision History

VersionDateAuthorDescription
1.02024-07-18Vascular Access Governance CommitteeInitial policy release
1.12025-11-01Vascular Access Governance CommitteeAnnual review; adult nonpharmacologic interventions and adolescent pain equity language updated

References

  1. Kleidon TM, Cattanach P, Mihala G, Ullman AJ. Implementation of a paediatric peripheral intravenous catheter care bundle: a quality improvement initiative. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;55(10):1214-1223. doi:10.1111/jpc.14384 ↩︎

  2. Fujioka G, Newcomb P, Hunchusky C, Myers H, Behan D. Pain perception of a structured vascular access team approach to short peripheral catheter (SPC) placement compared to SPC placement by bedside nurses. J Infus Nurs. 2020;43(1):33-38. ↩︎

  3. Omkar Prasad R, Chew T, Giri JR, Hoerauf K. Patient experience with vascular access management informs satisfaction with overall hospitalization experience. J Infus Nurs. 2022;45(2):95-103. ↩︎

  4. Alobayli FY. Factors influencing nurses’ use of local anesthetics for venous and arterial access. J Infus Nurs. 2019;42(2):91-107. ↩︎

  5. Filbet M, Larkin P, Chabloz C, et al. Barriers to venipuncture-induced pain prevention in cancer patients: a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16(1):5. ↩︎

  6. Ullman A, Kleidon T. Developmental Stages and Clinical Conditions for Vascular Access in Pediatrics. In: Moureau NL, ed. Vessel Health and Preservation: The Right Approach for Vascular Access. Springer International Publishing; 2019:171-179. ↩︎

  7. Thrane SE, Wanless S, Cohen SM, Danford CA. The assessment and non-pharmacologic treatment of procedural pain from infancy to school age through a developmental lens: a synthesis of evidence with recommendations. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31(1):e23-e32. ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. Wrona SK, Quinlan-Colwell A, Brown L, Jannuzzi RGE. Procedural pain management: clinical practice recommendations American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Pain Manag Nurs. 2022;23(3):254-258. ↩︎ ↩︎

  9. Shiff I, Bucsea O, Pillai Riddell R. Psychosocial and neurobiological vulnerabilities of the hospitalized preterm infant and relevant non-pharmacological pain mitigation strategies. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:568755. ↩︎

  10. Obeidat HM, Dwairej DaA, Aloweidi AS. Pain in preterm infants: different perspectives. J Perinat Educ. 2021;30(4):185-195. ↩︎

  11. Harrison D. Pain management for infants – myths, misconceptions, barriers; knowledge and knowledge gaps. J Neonatal Nurs. 2021;27(5):313-316. ↩︎

  12. Hatfield LA, Murphy N, Karp K, Polomano RC. A systematic review of behavioral and environmental interventions for procedural pain management in preterm infants. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:22-30. ↩︎ ↩︎

  13. Fitri SYR, Wardhani V, Rakhmawati W, Pahria T, Hendrawati S. Culturally based practice in neonatal procedural pain management: a mini review. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:540. ↩︎

  14. McMurtry CM, Pillai Riddell R, Taddio A, et al. Far from “just a poke”: common painful needle procedures and the development of needle fear. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(10 Suppl):S3-S11. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000272 ↩︎ ↩︎

  15. Lunoe MM, Bolin AE, Drendel AL. An evaluation of high preprocedural anxiety and venipuncture pain experienced by young children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37(10):e621-e624. ↩︎

  16. Cozzi G, Cognigni M, Busatto R, et al. Adolescents’ pain and distress during peripheral intravenous cannulation in a paediatric emergency setting. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(1):125-131. ↩︎

  17. Pascolo P, Peri F, Montico M, et al. Needle-related pain and distress management during needle-related procedures in children with and without intellectual disability. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(12):1753-1760. ↩︎

  18. Schofield P. The assessment of pain in older people: UK National Guidelines. Age Ageing. 2018;47(suppl_1):i1-i22. ↩︎

  19. Rheel E, Malfliet A, Ryckeghem DMLV, Pas R, Vervoort T, Ickmans K. Impact of parental presence on their children during painful medical procedures: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2022;23(5):912-933. ↩︎ ↩︎

  20. McNair C, Chinian N, Shah V, et al. Metasynthesis of factors that influence parents’ participation in pain management for their infants in the NICU. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2020;49(3):263-271. ↩︎

  21. Eissler AB, Zwakhalen S, Stoffel L, Hahn S. Systematic review of the effectiveness of involving parents during painful interventions for their preterm infants. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2022;51(1):6-15. ↩︎

  22. Richardson B, Falconer A, Shrestha J, Cassidy C, Campbell-Yeo M, Curran JA. Parent-targeted education regarding infant pain management delivered during the perinatal period: a scoping review. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2020;34(1):56-65. ↩︎

  23. Gates A, Shave K, Featherstone R, et al. Procedural pain: systematic review of parent experiences and information needs. Clin Pediatr. 2018;57(6):672-688. ↩︎

  24. Queirós I, Moreira T, Pissarra R, Soares H, Guimaraes H. Non-pharmacological management of neonatal pain: a systematic review. Minerva Pediatr (Torino). 2022;75(2):282-295. ↩︎

  25. Guo W, Liu X, Zhou X, Wu T, Sun J. Efficacy and safety of combined nonpharmacological interventions for repeated procedural pain in preterm neonates: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;102:103471. ↩︎ ↩︎

  26. Gomes Neto M, da Silva Lopes IA, Araujo ACCLM, Oliveira LS, Saquetto MB. The effect of facilitated tucking position during painful procedure in pain management of preterm infants in neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;179(5):699-709. ↩︎

  27. Stevens B, Yamada J, Ohlsson A, Haliburton S, Shorkey A. Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7(7):CD001069. ↩︎

  28. Johnston C, Campbell-Yeo M, Disher T, et al. Skin-to-skin care for procedural pain in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):CD008435. ↩︎

  29. Wang F, Zhang Q, Ni ZH, Lv HT. Effects of kangaroo care on pain relief in premature infants during painful procedures: a meta-analysis. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2022;27(4):e12390. ↩︎

  30. Francisco ASPG, Montemezzo D, Ribeiro SNDS, et al. Positioning effects for procedural pain relief in NICU: systematic review. Pain Manag Nurs. 2021;22(2):121-132. ↩︎

  31. Sasidharan R, Gupta N, Yadav B, Chawla D, Singh K, Singh AK. 25% dextrose versus 24% sucrose for heel lancing in preterm infants: a noninferiority RCT. Pediatrics. 2022;149(5):1-62. ↩︎

  32. Lago P, Cavicchiolo ME, Mion T, et al. Repeating a dose of sucrose for heel prick procedure in preterms is not effective in reducing pain: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;179(2):293-301. ↩︎

  33. Talebi M, Amiri SRJ, Roshan PA, Zabihi A, Zahedpasha Y, Chehrazi M. The effect of concurrent use of swaddle and sucrose on the intensity of pain during venous blood sampling in neonate: a clinical trial study. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):1-8. ↩︎

  34. Shahid S, Florez ID, Mbuagbaw L. Efficacy and safety of EMLA cream for pain control due to venipuncture in infants: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2019;143(1):e20181173. ↩︎ ↩︎

  35. Foster JP, Taylor C, Spence K. Topical anaesthesia for needle-related pain in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017(2):CD010331. ↩︎

  36. Bice AA, Wyatt TH. Holistic comfort interventions for pediatric nursing procedures: a systematic review. J Holist Nurs. 2017;35(3):280-295. ↩︎

  37. Preisz A, Preisz P. Restraint in paediatrics: a delicate balance. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;55(10):1165-1169. ↩︎

  38. Birnie KA, Noel M, Chambers CT, Uman LS, Parker JA. Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2020(10):CD005179. ↩︎

  39. Bukola IM, Paula D. The effectiveness of distraction as procedural pain management technique in pediatric oncology patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(4):589-600.e1. ↩︎

  40. Tran Thi TH, Konara Mudiyanselage SP, Huang M-C. Effects of distraction on reducing pain during invasive procedures in children with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Manag Nurs. 2022;23(3):281-292. ↩︎

  41. Grabinski ZG, Boscamp NS, Zuckerman WA, et al. Efficacy of distraction for reducing pain and distress associated with venipuncture in the pediatric posttransplant population. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2022;38(2):E811-E815. ↩︎

  42. Kurudirek F, Arikan D, Sarialiğlu A. Effects of therapeutic clowning on pain and anxiety during venous blood sampling in Turkey: randomised controlled trial. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2021;26(4):1-9. ↩︎

  43. Arıkan A, Esenay FI. Active and passive distraction interventions in a pediatric emergency department to reduce the pain and anxiety during venous blood sampling: a randomized clinical trial. J Emerg Nurs. 2020;46(6):779-790. ↩︎

  44. Atzori B, Vagnoli L, Graziani D, et al. An exploratory study on the effectiveness of virtual reality analgesia for children and adolescents with kidney diseases undergoing venipuncture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(4):2291. ↩︎

  45. Erdogan B, Aytekin Ozdemir A. The effect of three different methods on venipuncture pain and anxiety in children: distraction cards, virtual reality, and Buzzy® (randomized controlled trial). J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;58:e54-e62. ↩︎

  46. Addab S, Hamdy R, Thorstad K, Le May S, Tsimicalis A. Use of virtual reality in managing paediatric procedural pain and anxiety: an integrative literature review. J Clin Nurs. 2022;31(21-22):3032-3059. ↩︎

  47. Czech O, Wrzeciono A, Rutkowska A, Guzik A, Kiper P, Rutkowski S. Virtual reality interventions for needle-related procedural pain, fear and anxiety—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(15):3248. ↩︎ ↩︎

  48. Gates M, Hartling L, Shulhan-Kilroy J, et al. Digital technology distraction for acute pain in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191139. ↩︎

  49. Gold JI, Mahrer NE. Is virtual reality ready for prime time in the medical space? A randomized control trial of pediatric virtual reality for acute procedural pain management. J Pediatr Psychol. 2018;43(3):266-275. ↩︎

  50. Gold JI, Soohoo M, Laikin AM, Lane AS, Klein MJ. Effect of an immersive virtual reality intervention on pain and anxiety associated with peripheral intravenous catheter placement in the pediatric setting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2122569. ↩︎

  51. Goldman RD, Behboudi A. Virtual reality for intravenous placement in the emergency department—a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180(3):725-731. ↩︎

  52. Ryu JH, Han SH, Hwang SM, et al. Effects of virtual reality education on procedural pain and anxiety during venipuncture in children: a randomized clinical trial. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:849541. ↩︎

  53. Saliba T, Schmartz D, Fils JF, Van Der Linden P. The use of virtual reality in children undergoing vascular access procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022;36(4):1003-1012. ↩︎

  54. Schlechter AK, Whitaker W, Iyer S, Gabriele G, Wilkinson M. Virtual reality distraction during pediatric intravenous line placement in the emergency department: a prospective randomized comparison study. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;44:296-299. ↩︎

  55. Thybo KH, Friis SM, Aagaard G, et al. A randomized controlled trial on virtual reality distraction during venous cannulation in young children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022;66(9):1077-1082. ↩︎

  56. Wong CL, Li CK, Chan CWH, et al. Virtual reality intervention targeting pain and anxiety among pediatric cancer patients undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs. 2021;44(6):435-442. ↩︎

  57. Goudman L, Jansen J, De Smedt A, et al. Virtual reality during intrathecal pump refills in children: a case series. J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5877. ↩︎

  58. Ting B, Tsai C-L, Hsu W-T, et al. Music intervention for pain control in the pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2022;11(4):991. ↩︎

  59. Lakhkar BB, Patil MM. Role of music in alleviating procedural pain in neonates. Perinatology. 2021;22(3):189-196. ↩︎

  60. Ballard A, Khadra C, Adler S, Trottier ED, Le May S. Efficacy of the Buzzy device for pain management during needle-related procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(6):532-543. ↩︎

  61. Ueki S, Yamagami Y, Makimoto K. Effectiveness of vibratory stimulation on needle-related procedural pain in children: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019;17(7):1428-1463. ↩︎

  62. Bourdier S, Khelif N, Velasquez M, et al. Cold vibration (Buzzy) versus anesthetic patch (EMLA) for pain prevention during cannulation in children: a randomized trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37(2):86-91. ↩︎

  63. Cozzi G, Crevatin F, Dri V, et al. Distraction using Buzzy or handheld computers during venipuncture. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37(9):e512-e516. ↩︎

  64. Pakiş Çetin S, Çevik K. Effects of vibration and cold application on pain and anxiety during intravenous catheterization. J Perianesth Nurs. 2019;34(4):701-709. ↩︎ ↩︎

  65. Bernstein K, Karkhaneh M, Zorzela L, Jou H, Vohra S. Massage therapy for paediatric procedural pain: a rapid review. Paediatr Child Health. 2021;26(1):e57-e66. ↩︎

  66. Fitri SYR, Nasution SK, Nurhidayah I, Maryam NNA. Massage therapy as a non-pharmacological analgesia for procedural pain in neonates: a scoping review. Complement Ther Med. 2021;59:102735. ↩︎

  67. Koç Özkan T, Balçı S. The effect of acupressure on acute pain during venipuncture in children: implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2020;17(3):221-228. ↩︎

  68. Gaikwad NS, Naregal PM, Mohite VR, Karale RB. A study to assess the effectiveness of ice application on pain response prior to intravenous procedures among children at tertiary care hospital. Asian J Pharm Res Health Care. 2017;9(4):167-173. ↩︎

  69. Mohd Shahir H, Mohd Hashairi F, Abu Yazid M, et al. Effectiveness of ice compression to reduce pain among primary school children venipuncture and peripheral intravenous cannulation in emergency department North-Eastern Malaysia. Int Med J. 2022;29(1):34-37. ↩︎

  70. Bond M, Crathorne L, Peters J, et al. First do no harm: pain relief for the peripheral venous cannulation of adults, a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16(1):81. ↩︎

  71. da Cunha Batalha LM, Marques Correia MM. Prevention of venipuncture pain in children: a comparative study of topical anesthetics. Rev Enferm Ref. 2018;4(18):93-101. ↩︎

  72. Oluwadun OB, Adekola OO, Dada OIO, et al. EMLA cream vs 10% lidocaine cream for attenuating venous cannulation pain — a clinical trial. Ann Afr Surg. 2019;16(1):4-10. ↩︎

  73. Stoltz P, Manworren RCB. Comparison of children’s venipuncture fear and pain: randomized controlled trial of EMLA® and J-Tip Needleless Injection System®. J Pediatr Nurs. 2017;37:91-96. ↩︎

  74. Redmond P, Blackshear C, Davis J. The effect of lidocaine delivered by jet injection on first attempt venous access success rates in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2022;38(1):E34-E36. ↩︎

  75. Griffith RJ, Jordan V, Herd D, Reed PW, Dalziel SR. Vapocoolants (cold spray) for pain treatment during intravenous cannulation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(4):CD009484. ↩︎ ↩︎

  76. Cook LS. Needle phobia. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39(5):273-279. ↩︎

  77. Korkut S, Karadags S, Dogan Z. The effectiveness of local hot and cold applications on peripheral intravenous catheterization: a randomized controlled trial. J Perianesth Nurs. 2020;35(6):597-602. ↩︎

  78. Bahar A, Aktas D, Sonmez M. Effects of cold therapy on pain and anxiety during needle removal from implanted ports. J Infus Nurs. 2023;46(1):36-42. ↩︎

  79. Yayla EM, Ozdemir L. Effect of inhalation aromatherapy on procedural pain and anxiety after needle insertion into an implantable central venous port catheter: a quasi-randomized controlled pilot study. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42(1):35-41. ↩︎

  80. Erzincanli S, Kasark S. Effect of hand massage on pain, anxiety, and vital signs in patients before venipuncture procedure: a randomized controlled trial. Pain Manag Nurs. 2021;22:356-360. ↩︎

  81. Hosseini SV, Manzari ZS, Karkhah S, Heydari A. The effects of Valsalva maneuver on pain intensity and hemodynamic status during short peripheral cannula insertion in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2022;11297298221145982. ↩︎

  82. Srivastava A, Kumar S, Agarwal A, et al. Evaluation of efficacy of Valsalva for attenuating needle puncture pain in first time nonremunerated voluntary plateletpheresis donors: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2021;15(1):68-74. ↩︎

  83. Patel BK, Wendlandt BN, Wolfe KS, et al. Comparison of two lidocaine administration techniques on perceived pain from bedside procedures: a randomized clinical trial. Chest. 2018;154(4):773-780. ↩︎ ↩︎

  84. Bray K, Winkelman C, Bernhofer EI, Marek JF. Procedural pain in the adult neurological intensive care unit: a retrospective study examining arterial line insertion. Pain Manag Nurs. 2020;21(4):323-330. ↩︎

  85. Plohal A, Dutchover EP, Root J, Kurilla B, Balas R. Changing the buffer in buffered lidocaine. J Infus Nurs. 2022;45(5):245-251. ↩︎ ↩︎

  86. Thind D, Roberts SJ, van der Griend BFH. Coolsense® EMLA® for peripheral venous cannulation in adult volunteers: a randomised crossover trial. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2021;49(6):468-476. ↩︎

  87. Rzhevskiy A, Popov A, Pavlov C, et al. Intradermal injection of lidocaine with a microneedle device to provide rapid local anaesthesia for peripheral intravenous cannulation: a randomised open-label placebo-controlled clinical trial. PLoS One. 2022;17(1):e0261641. ↩︎

  88. Babaieasl F, Yarandi HN, Saeidzadeh S, Kheradmand M. Comparison of EMLA and diclofenac on reduction of pain and phlebitis caused by peripheral IV catheter: a randomized-controlled trial study. Home Healthc Now. 2019;37(1):17-22. ↩︎

  89. Heydari F, Khalilian S, Golshani K, Majidinejad S, Masoumi B, Massoumi A. Topical ketamine as a local anesthetic agent in reducing venipuncture pain: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;48:48-53. ↩︎

  90. Kumar S, Sanjeev O, Agarwal A, Shamshery C, Gupta R. Double blind randomized control trial to evaluate the efficacy of ketoprofen patch to attenuate pain during venous cannulation. Korean J Pain. 2018;31(1):39-42. ↩︎

  91. Zhu Y, Peng X, Wang S, et al. Vapocoolant spray versus placebo spray/no treatment for reducing pain from intravenous cannulation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:2085-2092. ↩︎

  92. Basak T, Aciksoz S, Savasci U, Yilmaz S. Effectiveness of vapocoolant spray on venipuncture pain in young male donors: a randomized controlled trial. J Infus Nurs. 2021;44(6):339-345. ↩︎

Teams can standardize this procedure with version control and compliance tracking.

Learn about qpolicy.ai