Katja Taxis1, Nick Barber. 1. Department of Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of London, London WC1 1AX. katja.taxis@uni-tuebingen.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and clinical importance of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs and the stages of the process in which errors occur. DESIGN: Prospective ethnographic study using disguised observation. PARTICIPANTS: Nurses who prepared and administered intravenous drugs. SETTING: 10 wards in a teaching and non-teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, type, and clinical importance of errors. RESULTS: 249 errors were identified. At least one error occurred in 212 out of 430 intravenous drug doses (49%, 95% confidence interval 45% to 54%). Three doses (1%) had potentially severe errors, 126 (29%) potentially moderate errors, and 83 (19%) potentially minor errors. Most errors occurred when giving bolus doses or making up drugs that required multiple step preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of intravenous drug errors was high. Although most errors would cause only short term adverse effects, a few could have been serious. A combination of reducing the amount of preparation on the ward, training, and technology to administer slow bolus doses would probably have the greatest effect on error rates.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and clinical importance of errors in the preparation and administration of intravenous drugs and the stages of the process in which errors occur. DESIGN: Prospective ethnographic study using disguised observation. PARTICIPANTS: Nurses who prepared and administered intravenous drugs. SETTING: 10 wards in a teaching and non-teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, type, and clinical importance of errors. RESULTS: 249 errors were identified. At least one error occurred in 212 out of 430 intravenous drug doses (49%, 95% confidence interval 45% to 54%). Three doses (1%) had potentially severe errors, 126 (29%) potentially moderate errors, and 83 (19%) potentially minor errors. Most errors occurred when giving bolus doses or making up drugs that required multiple step preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of intravenous drug errors was high. Although most errors would cause only short term adverse effects, a few could have been serious. A combination of reducing the amount of preparation on the ward, training, and technology to administer slow bolus doses would probably have the greatest effect on error rates.
Authors: L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sonia Pinkney; Mark Fan; Katherine Chan; Christine Koczmara; Christopher Colvin; Farzan Sasangohar; Caterina Masino; Anthony Easty; Patricia Trbovich Journal: Ont Health Technol Assess Ser Date: 2014-05-01
Authors: Anita Krähenbühl-Melcher; Raymond Schlienger; Markus Lampert; Manuel Haschke; Jürgen Drewe; Stephan Krähenbühl Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.606