OBJECTIVES:Assess interventions’ impact on preventing IV infusion identification and disconnection mix-ups.
DESIGN:Experimental study with repeated measures design.
SETTING:High fidelity simulated ...adult ICU.
SUBJECTS:Forty critical care nurses.
INTERVENTIONS:Participants had to correctly identify infusions and disconnect an infusion in four different conditionsbaseline (current practice); line labels/organizers; smart pump; and light-linking system.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Participants identified infusions with significantly fewer errors when using line labels/organizers (0; 0%) than in the baseline (12; 7.7%) and smart pump conditions (10; 6.4%) (p < 0.01). The light-linking system did not significantly affect identification errors (5; 3.2%) compared with the other conditions. Participants were significantly faster identifying infusions when using line labels/organizers (0:31) than in the baseline (1:20), smart pump (1:29), and light-linking (1:22) conditions (p < 0.001). When disconnecting an infusion, there was no significant difference in errors between conditions, but participants were significantly slower when using the smart pump than all other conditions (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that line labels/organizers may increase infusion identification accuracy and efficiency.
Background Nurses are frequently interrupted during medication verification and administration; however, few interventions exist to mitigate resulting errors, and the impact of these interventions on ...medication safety is poorly understood. Objective The study objectives were to (A) assess the effects of interruptions on medication verification and administration errors, and (B) design and test the effectiveness of targeted interventions at reducing these errors. Methods The study focused on medication verification and administration in an ambulatory chemotherapy setting. A simulation laboratory experiment was conducted to determine interruption-related error rates during specific medication verification and administration tasks. Interventions to reduce these errors were developed through a participatory design process, and their error reduction effectiveness was assessed through a postintervention experiment. Results Significantly more nurses committed medication errors when interrupted than when uninterrupted. With use of interventions when interrupted, significantly fewer nurses made errors in verifying medication volumes contained in syringes (16/18; 89% preintervention error rate vs 11/19; 58% postintervention error rate; p=0.038; Fisher's exact test) and programmed in ambulatory pumps (17/18; 94% preintervention vs 11/19; 58% postintervention; p=0.012). The rate of error commission significantly decreased with use of interventions when interrupted during intravenous push (16/18; 89% preintervention vs 6/19; 32% postintervention; p=0.017) and pump programming (7/18; 39% preintervention vs 1/19; 5% postintervention; p=0.017). No statistically significant differences were observed for other medication verification tasks. Conclusions Interruptions can lead to medication verification and administration errors. Interventions were highly effective at reducing unanticipated errors of commission in medication administration tasks, but showed mixed effectiveness at reducing predictable errors of detection in medication verification tasks. These findings can be generalised and adapted to mitigate interruption-related errors in other settings where medication verification and administration are required.
A case report, focused on vasopressor use and presented in this article, is likely to resonate with many critical care nurses. In this article the authors describe opportunities to enhance safety ...with vasopressor therapy. Specifically, the goal of improving communication among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists around desired endpoints for vasopressor therapy, triggers for reassessment of the therapeutic strategy and cause of the patient's shock was identified as an area for improvement. A form piloted within an organization for use during multidisciplinary rounds and key findings is shared. Vasopressors constitute the mainstay of therapy for nearly every hemodynamically unstable patient in critical care. It is hoped that the lessons and information shared help empower critical care nurses to facilitate vasopressor stewardship within their facilities and, ultimately, enhance patient safety.
In this article, the authors highlight an incident that involved a mix-up between the oral anticoagulant medication Pradax (dabigatran etexilate) and the antiplatelet medication Plavix (clopidogrel). ...Because critical care nurses may admit or care for patients who are receiving (or have received) one of these medications, it is important that they be aware of the potential for confusion between these two drug names throughout the medication-use process.
Administering multiple intravenous (IV) infusions to a single patient via infusion pump occurs routinely in health care, but there has been little empirical research examining the risks associated ...with this practice or ways to mitigate those risks.
To identify the risks associated with multiple IV infusions and assess the impact of interventions on nurses' ability to safely administer them.
Forty nurses completed infusion-related tasks in a simulated adult intensive care unit, with and without interventions (i.e., repeated-measures design).
Errors were observed in completing common tasks associated with the administration of multiple IV infusions, including the following (all values from baseline, which was current practice): setting up and programming multiple primary continuous IV infusions (e.g., 11.7% programming errors)identifying IV infusions (e.g., 7.7% line-tracing errors)managing dead volume (e.g., 96.0% flush rate errors following IV syringe dose administration)setting up a secondary intermittent IV infusion (e.g., 11.3% secondary clamp errors)administering an IV pump bolus (e.g., 11.5% programming errors)Of 10 interventions tested, 6 (1 practice, 3 technology, and 2 educational) significantly decreased or even eliminated errors compared to baseline.
The simulation of an adult intensive care unit at 1 hospital limited the ability to generalize results. The study results were representative of nurses who received training in the interventions but had little experience using them. The longitudinal effects of the interventions were not studied.
Administering and managing multiple IV infusions is a complex and risk-prone activity. However, when a patient requires multiple IV infusions, targeted interventions can reduce identified risks. A combination of standardized practice, technology improvements, and targeted education is required.
An incident report received from an intensive care unit involving the administration of a secondary infusion is reprinted, with permission, and includes material from an ISMP Canada Safety Bulletin ...(ISMP Canada, 2005). The incident highlights a general shortcoming of many infusion pumps: lack of the capability to recognize primary versus secondary infusions. Reliance on practitioner vigilance to ensure appropriate administration adds to their already demanding practice. Secondary lines require "primary" attention from manufacturers to enhance infusion pump design and, in the interim, by all practitioners using infusion pumps with such limitations.
Research conducted in earlier phases of this study prospectively identified a number of concerns related to the safe administration of multiple intravenous (IV) infusions in Ontario hospitals.
To ...investigate the potential prevalence of practices or policies that may contribute to the patient safety risks identified in Phase 1b of this study.
Sixty-four survey responses were analyzed from clinical units where multiple IV infusions may occur (e.g., adult intensive care units). Survey questions were organized according to the topics identified in Phase 1b as potential contributors to patient harm (e.g., labelling practices, patient transfer practices, secondary infusion policies).
Survey results indicated suboptimal practices and policies in some clinical units, and variability in a number of infusion practices. Key areas of concern included the following: use of primary IV tubing without back check valves when administering secondary infusions, administration of secondary infusions with/as high-alert continuous IV medications, potential confusion about how IV tubing should be labelled to reflect replacement date and time, interruptions to IV therapy due to IV pump and/or tubing changes when patients are transferred between clinical units, coadministration of continuous or intermittent infusions on central venous pressure monitoring ports, variability in respondents' awareness of the infusion pump's bolus capabilities.
Due to the limited sample size, survey responses may not be representative of infusion practices across Ontario. Answers to some questions indicated that the intent of the questions might have been misunderstood. Due to a design error, 1 question about bolus administration methods was not shown to as many respondents as appropriate.
The Ontario survey revealed variability in IV infusion practice across the province and potential opportunities to improve safety.
PDF
