PURPOSE: To compare the concentration conformity of infusion solutions manually prepared on intensive care units (ICU) with solutions from pharmacy-based, automated production. METHODS: A prospective observational study conducted in a university hospital in Germany. Drug concentrations of 100 standardised infusion solutions manually prepared in the ICU and 100 matching solutions from automated production containing amiodarone, noradrenaline or hydrocortisone were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography analysis. Deviations from stated concentrations were calculated, and the quality of achieved concentration conformity of the two production methods was compared. RESULTS: Actual concentrations of 53% of the manually prepared and 16% of the machine-made solutions deviated by >5% above or below the stated concentration. A deviation of >10% was measured in 22% of the manually prepared samples and in 5% of samples from automated production. Of the manually prepared solutions, 15% deviated by >15% above or below the intended concentration. The mean concentration of the manually prepared solutions was 97.2% (SD 12.7%, range 45-129%) and of the machine-made solutions was 101.1% (SD 4.3%, range 90-114%) of the target concentration (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, ward-based, manually prepared infusion solutions showed clinically relevant deviations in concentration conformity significantly more often than pharmacy-prepared, machine-made solutions. Centralised, automated preparation of standardised infusion solutions may be an effective means to reduce this type of medication error. Further confirmatory studies in larger settings and under conditions of routine automated production are required.
PURPOSE: To compare the concentration conformity of infusion solutions manually prepared on intensive care units (ICU) with solutions from pharmacy-based, automated production. METHODS: A prospective observational study conducted in a university hospital in Germany. Drug concentrations of 100 standardised infusion solutions manually prepared in the ICU and 100 matching solutions from automated production containing amiodarone, noradrenaline or hydrocortisone were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography analysis. Deviations from stated concentrations were calculated, and the quality of achieved concentration conformity of the two production methods was compared. RESULTS: Actual concentrations of 53% of the manually prepared and 16% of the machine-made solutions deviated by >5% above or below the stated concentration. A deviation of >10% was measured in 22% of the manually prepared samples and in 5% of samples from automated production. Of the manually prepared solutions, 15% deviated by >15% above or below the intended concentration. The mean concentration of the manually prepared solutions was 97.2% (SD 12.7%, range 45-129%) and of the machine-made solutions was 101.1% (SD 4.3%, range 90-114%) of the target concentration (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, ward-based, manually prepared infusion solutions showed clinically relevant deviations in concentration conformity significantly more often than pharmacy-prepared, machine-made solutions. Centralised, automated preparation of standardised infusion solutions may be an effective means to reduce this type of medication error. Further confirmatory studies in larger settings and under conditions of routine automated production are required.
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
Authors: Tim Eckmanns; Jan Bessert; Michael Behnke; Petra Gastmeier; Henning Ruden Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Andreas Valentin; Maurizia Capuzzo; Bertrand Guidet; Rui P Moreno; Lorenz Dolanski; Peter Bauer; Philipp G H Metnitz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jeffrey M Rothschild; Christopher P Landrigan; John W Cronin; Rainu Kaushal; Steven W Lockley; Elisabeth Burdick; Peter H Stone; Craig M Lilly; Joel T Katz; Charles A Czeisler; David W Bates Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christopher S Parshuram; Geraldine Y T Ng; Tommy K L Ho; Julia Klein; Aideen M Moore; Desmond Bohn; Gideon Koren Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Irene P Jongerden; Arjen J Slooter; Linda M Peelen; Hester Wessels; Colette M Ram; Jozef Kesecioglu; Margriet M Schneider; Diederik van Dijk Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Maartje S Jacobs; Marianne Luinstra; Jan Reindert Moes; Tiffany C Y Chan; Isidor Minovic; Henderik W Frijlink; Herman J Woerdenbag Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2016-04-13
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J Randall Curtis; Daniel De Backer; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 17.440