During the post-surgical operation, part of my duty includes monitoring the patients for signs of shock, ensure that the patients’ surgical wound is free from infection, and manage the patients’ post-operative pain. At all times, surgical nurses should be able to deliver holistic care to the patients. It means that part of the duty of surgical nurses is to satisfy the pathophysiological, socio-economic, psychological and spiritual dimensions of healthcare. For this reason, it is equally important on the part of surgical nurses to carefully study and re-examine the health and socio-economic consequences of using a prolonged peripheral IV line and the possibility of generating avoidable infection out of using these devices. When I was assigned to care for Mr. Phillip, part of my duty was to regulate his IV line. While regulating his peripheral IV line, I started to wonder how often nurses should change their line to prevent the risk of IV line infection (ONE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED... Delete this part). Is it really safe to extend the patient’s peripheral IV catheter line for up to 96 hours? What does the NHS say about extending the patient’s peripheral IV catheter line from 72 to 96 hours? When exactly is the right time for surgical nurses to change the patients’ peripheral IV lines? To address these research questions, a literature review be conducted based on some peer-reviewed journals. Using search words and phrases like “health consequences of prolonged peripheral IV line journal”, “NHS peripheral IV line”, “hand washing IV line infection”, and “peripheral IV line 72 96 hours journal”, the researcher will gather evidenced-based journals directly from the databases of NCBI/Pubmed, Medline, and Pubmed Central. Based on the actual literature review, a proposed change will be highlighted in this study followed by describing its actual contribution to the nursing practice, the rationale underpinning the proposed change in patient care, alternative strategies and reasons underpinning the final choice of action, ways on how the proposed change in patient care can be evaluated, and its expected outcomes. Prior to the research study conclusion, the ethical and legal considerations behind the implementation of the proposed change will be tackled in details. Literature Review Intravenous catheterization is one of the most common invasive intravenous procedures being performed in patients who were admitted in a hospital. Basically, the main purpose of administering intravenous fluids on admitted patients is important in terms of promoting electrolyte balance in the human body, for rehydration purposes for patients who are dehydrated due to prolonged diarrhoea, to provide the patients with glucose (dextrose) to increase the body’s metabolism, and administration of water-soluble vitamins and other medications like antibiotics into intravenous line. (Morgan, Range, & Staton, 2007; Kozier et al., 2004, p. 1387). Since IV line insertion is invasive by nature, patients who are receiving IV fluids can be at risk of developing hospital-acquired infection. In most cases, the development of intravenous-related infection is related to the failure of health care professionals to apply a strict sterile technique when performing and managing the intravenous insertion and removal process (O’Grady et al., 2002).