OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients require implantation of venous access devices to meet their personalized therapeutic needs, which are often complex due to the nature of the medication and the disease status. Therefore, it is essential to have standardized protocols that guarantee the best results in health and patient safety.
METHODS: To learn about the availability of protocols and aspects related to safety in clinical practice and to detect possible opportunities for improvement, a survey has been conducted in various Spanish hospitals, in addition to a review of the evidence regarding the various devices available and complications associated with the administration of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: As a result of both analyses, the Foundation for Excellence and Quality in Oncology (ECO), the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), and the Spanish Society of Oncology Nursing (SEEO) have developed a catheter selection algorithm based on patient characteristics and treatment to facilitate the clinical decision-making process, as well as some recommendations aimed at ensuring patient safety and rational use of available resources.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, both the venous access catheter selection algorithm and the proposed recommendations aim to respond to the needs revealed in clinical practice and to become an integrable tool in electronic prescription systems to offer homogeneous criteria for action in cancer patients that require venous access, optimizing the use of available health resources with the highest safety and quality of life for the patient.

Over the last century, much has been learned about the pathogenesis, manifestations, and management of Graves\' disease leading to the establishment of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The joint clinical practice guidelines from the American Thyroid Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists give recommendations on both the diagnosis and treatment of hyperthyroidism. A survey of clinicians performed that same year, however, revealed that current practices diverge from these recently published guidelines in multiple areas. These differences will need to be assessed serially to determine the impact of the guidelines on future clinical practice and perhaps vice versa.