Literature DB >> 21533570

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

Carola Dehmel1, Stephan A Braune, Georg Kreymann, Michael Baehr, Claudia Langebrake, Heike Hilgarth, Axel Nierhaus, Dorothee C Dartsch, Stefan Kluge.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21533570     DOI: 10.1007/s00134-011-2230-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0342-4642            Impact factor:   17.440


  21 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.  Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units: the Hawthorne effect.

Authors:  Tim Eckmanns; Jan Bessert; Michael Behnke; Petra Gastmeier; Henning Ruden
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-22       Impact factor: 3.254

3.  Interventions to reduce medication prescribing errors in a paediatric cardiac intensive care unit.

Authors:  Margarita K Burmester; Roger Dionne; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Peter C Laussen
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-03-15       Impact factor: 17.440

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

Authors:  Christopher S Parshuram; Teresa To; Winnie Seto; Angela Trope; Gideon Koren; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Patient safety in intensive care: results from the multinational Sentinel Events Evaluation (SEE) study.

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

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 Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care.

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

8.  Difference between the measured and ordered dose of catecholamine infusions.

Authors:  E M Allen; D H Van Boerum; A F Olsen; J M Dean
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 3.154

9.  Discrepancies between ordered and delivered concentrations of opiate infusions in critical care.

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

10.  Errors in administration of parenteral drugs in intensive care units: multinational prospective study.

Authors:  Andreas Valentin; Maurizia Capuzzo; Bertrand Guidet; Rui Moreno; Barbara Metnitz; Peter Bauer; Philipp Metnitz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-03-12
View more
  15 in total

1.  Random errors in insulin infusion concentrations.

Authors:  Richard Pierson; Ari Ercole; Barbara Bewley; Iain Mackenzie
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  What's in that syringe? Standard drug concentrations in critical care.

Authors:  Anthony N Thomas
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2017-02-01

3.  Infusion medication concentrations in UK's critical care areas: Are the Intensive Care Society's recommendations being used?

Authors:  Yovita D Titiesari; Greg Barton; Mark Borthwick; Susan Keeling; Peter Keeling
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2017-02-01

4.  Effect of intensive care environment on family and patient satisfaction: a before-after study.

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

5.  Long-term stability of ready-to-use norepinephrine solution at 0.2 and 0.5 mg/mL.

Authors:  Sixtine Gilliot; Morgane Masse; Stéphanie Genay; Damien Lannoy; Christine Barthélémy; Bertrand Décaudin; Pascal Odou
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2020-02-06

6.  Ready-to-use parenteral amiodarone: a feasibility study towards a long-term stable product formulation.

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

Review 7.  Accuracy of intravenous and enteral preparations involving small volumes for paediatric use: a review.

Authors:  L P Ainscough; J L Ford; C W Morecroft; M Peak; M A Turner; A J Nunn; M Roberts
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2017-01-04

Review 8.  Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2011. II. Cardiovascular, infections, pneumonia and sepsis, critical care organization and outcome, education, ultrasonography, metabolism and coagulation.

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

9.  Medication errors in oral dosage form preparation for neonates: The importance of preparation technique.

Authors:  Sousan Valizadeh; Mehri Rasekhi; Hamed Hamishehkar; Malihe Asadollahi; Hadi Hamishehkar
Journal:  J Res Pharm Pract       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

Review 10.  Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings.

Authors:  Nancy Hedlund; Idal Beer; Torsten Hoppe-Tichy; Patricia Trbovich
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.