Literature DB >> 18166730

Systematic evaluation of errors occurring during the preparation of intravenous medication.

Christopher S Parshuram1, Teresa To, Winnie Seto, Angela Trope, Gideon Koren, Andreas Laupacis.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Errors in the concentration of intravenous medications are not uncommon. We evaluated steps in the infusion-preparation process to identify factors associated with preventable medication errors.
METHODS: We included 118 health care professionals who would be involved in the preparation of intravenous medication infusions as part of their regular clinical activities. Participants performed 5 infusion-preparation tasks (drug-volume calculation, rounding, volume measurement, dose-volume calculation, mixing) and prepared 4 morphine infusions to specified concentrations. The primary outcome was the occurrence of error (deviation of > 5% for volume measurement and > 10% for other measures). The secondary outcome was the magnitude of error.
RESULTS: Participants performed 1180 drug-volume calculations, 1180 rounding calculations and made 1767 syringe-volume measurements, and they prepared 464 morphine infusions. We detected errors in 58 (4.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7% to 6.2%) drug-volume calculations, 30 (2.5%, 95% CI 1.6% to 3.4%) rounding calculations and 29 (1.6%, 95% CI 1.1% to 2.2%) volume measurements. We found 7 errors (1.6%, 95% CI 0.4% to 2.7%) in drug mixing. Of the 464 infusion preparations, 161 (34.7%, 95% CI 30.4% to 39%) contained concentration errors. Calculator use was associated with fewer errors in dose-volume calculations (4% v. 10%, p = 0.001). Four factors were positively associated with the occurrence of a concentration error: fewer infusions prepared in the previous week (p = 0.007), increased number of years of professional experience (p = 0.01), the use of the more concentrated stock solution (p < 0.001) and the preparation of smaller dose volumes (p < 0.001). Larger magnitude errors were associated with fewer hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours (p = 0.02), the use of more concentrated solutions (p < 0.001) and preparation of smaller infusion doses (p < 0.001).
INTERPRETATION: Our data suggest that the reduction of provider fatigue and production of pediatric-strength solutions or industry-prepared infusions may reduce medication errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18166730      PMCID: PMC2151118          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061743

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  34 in total

1.  Reengineering intravenous drug and fluid administration processes in the operating room: step one: task analysis of existing processes.

Authors:  Deborah B Fraind; Jason M Slagle; Victor A Tubbesing; Samuel A Hughes; Matthew B Weinger
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  A prospective, randomised clinical evaluation of a new safety-orientated injectable drug administration system in comparison with conventional methods.

Authors:  C S Webster; A F Merry; P H Gander; N K Mann
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.955

3.  Accuracy and variability of intravenous theophylline preparations.

Authors:  J F Dasta; M F Bonfiglio; N G Rague; B J Shields
Journal:  Ther Drug Monit       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 3.681

4.  Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units.

Authors:  Christopher P Landrigan; Jeffrey M Rothschild; John W Cronin; Rainu Kaushal; Elisabeth Burdick; Joel T Katz; Craig M Lilly; Peter H Stone; Steven W Lockley; David W Bates; Charles A Czeisler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

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

6.  Dosage accuracy of self-mixed vs premixed insulin.

Authors:  D S Bell; R S Clements; G Perentesis; R Roddam; L Wagenknecht
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1991-11

7.  Evaluation of compounding accuracy and aseptic techniques for intravenous admixtures.

Authors:  L H Sanders; S A Mabadeje; K E Avis; C A Cruze; D R Martinez
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1978-05

8.  Data collection techniques: observation.

Authors:  K N Barker
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1980-09

9.  The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada.

Authors:  G Ross Baker; Peter G Norton; Virginia Flintoft; Régis Blais; Adalsteinn Brown; Jafna Cox; Ed Etchells; William A Ghali; Philip Hébert; Sumit R Majumdar; Maeve O'Beirne; Luz Palacios-Derflingher; Robert J Reid; Sam Sheps; Robyn Tamblyn
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-05-25       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Patient safety: fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients.

Authors:  David M Gaba; Steven K Howard
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  30 in total

1.  Discontinuation of paediatric injectable digoxin: A loss for optimal drug therapy in children.

Authors:  Pascal Bédard; Isabelle Goyer
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Medication errors: the human factor.

Authors:  Edward Etchells; David Juurlink; Wendy Levinson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Medication errors in critical care: risk factors, prevention and disclosure.

Authors:  Eric Camiré; Eric Moyen; Henry Thomas Stelfox
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Safeguarding the process of drug administration with an emphasis on electronic support tools.

Authors:  Hanna M Seidling; Anette Lampert; Kristina Lohmann; Julia T Schiele; Alexander J F Send; Diana Witticke; Walter E Haefeli
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Do centrally pre-prepared solutions achieve more reliable drug concentrations than solutions prepared on the ward?

Authors:  Carola Dehmel; Stephan A Braune; Georg Kreymann; Michael Baehr; Claudia Langebrake; Heike Hilgarth; Axel Nierhaus; Dorothee C Dartsch; Stefan Kluge
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-04-30       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  The epidemiology of medication errors: the methodological difficulties.

Authors:  Robin E Ferner
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  The pathophysiology of medication errors: how and where they arise.

Authors:  Sarah E McDowell; Harriet S Ferner; Robin E Ferner
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Estimated cost savings from reducing errors in the preparation of sterile doses of medications.

Authors:  Terry F Urbine; Philip J Schneider
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2014-09

9.  Development of a stable low-dose aglycosylated antibody formulation to minimize protein loss during intravenous administration.

Authors:  Sorina Morar-Mitrica; Manasi Puri; Alexandra Beumer Sassi; Joshua Fuller; Ping Hu; George Crotts; Douglas Nesta
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 5.857

10.  Rapid reconstitution packages (RRPs) for stable storage and delivery of glucagon.

Authors:  Sebastian D'hers; Agustín N Abad Vazquez; Pablo Gurman; Noel M Elman
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.617

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.