Literature DB >> 23074426

Multiple intravenous infusions phase 1b: practice and training scan.

A Cassano-Piché, M Fan, S Sabovitch, C Masino, A C Easty.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimal research has been conducted into the potential patient safety issues related to administering multiple intravenous (IV) infusions to a single patient. Previous research has highlighted that there are a number of related safety risks. In Phase 1a of this study, an analysis of 2 national incident-reporting databases (Institute for Safe Medical Practices Canada and United States Food and Drug Administration MAUDE) found that a high percentage of incidents associated with the administration of multiple IV infusions resulted in patient harm.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of Phase 1b of this study were to identify safety issues with the potential to cause patient harm stemming from the administration of multiple IV infusions; and to identify how nurses are being educated on key principles required to safely administer multiple IV infusions. DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW
METHODS: A field study was conducted at 12 hospital clinical units (sites) across Ontario, and telephone interviews were conducted with program coordinators or instructors from both the Ontario baccalaureate nursing degree programs and the Ontario postgraduate Critical Care Nursing Certificate programs. Data were analyzed using Rasmussen's 1997 Risk Management Framework and a Health Care Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-two primary patient safety issues were identified with the potential to directly cause patient harm. Seventeen of these (critical issues) were categorized into 6 themes. A cause-consequence tree was established to outline all possible contributing factors for each critical issue. Clinical recommendations were identified for immediate distribution to, and implementation by, Ontario hospitals. Future investigation efforts were planned for Phase 2 of the study. LIMITATIONS: This exploratory field study identifies the potential for errors, but does not describe the direct observation of such errors, except in a few cases where errors were observed. Not all issues are known in advance, and the frequency of errors is too low to be observed in the time allotted and with the limited sample of observations.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of multiple IV infusions to a single patient is a complex task with many potential associated patient safety risks. Improvements to infusion and infusion-related technology, education standards, clinical best practice guidelines, hospital policies, and unit work practices are required to reduce the risk potential. This report makes several recommendations to Ontario hospitals so that they can develop an awareness of the issues highlighted in this report and minimize some of the risks. Further investigation of mitigating strategies is required and will be undertaken in Phase 2 of this research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23074426      PMCID: PMC3377572     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser        ISSN: 1915-7398


  30 in total

1.  The impact of carrier flow rate and infusion set dead-volume on the dynamics of intravenous drug delivery.

Authors:  Mark A Lovich; Jason Doles; Robert A Peterfreund
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Transfer of accountability: transforming shift handover to enhance patient safety.

Authors:  Kim Alvarado; Ruth Lee; Emily Christoffersen; Nancy Fram; Sheryl Boblin; Nancy Poole; Janie Lucas; Shirley Forsyth
Journal:  Healthc Q       Date:  2006

3.  The checklist: if something so simple can transform intensive care, what else can it do?

Authors:  Atul Gawande
Journal:  New Yorker       Date:  2007-12-10

4.  An in vitro analysis of central venous drug delivery by continuous infusion: the effect of manifold design and port selection.

Authors:  David R Moss; Karsten Bartels; Gregory L Peterfreund; Mark A Lovich; Nathaniel M Sims; Robert A Peterfreund
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections.

Authors:  Naomi P O'Grady; Mary Alexander; Lillian A Burns; E Patchen Dellinger; Jeffrey Garland; Stephen O Heard; Pamela A Lipsett; Henry Masur; Leonard A Mermel; Michele L Pearson; Issam I Raad; Adrienne G Randolph; Mark E Rupp; Sanjay Saint
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.918

6.  "Smart" infusion pumps are selectively intelligent.

Authors:  Kathleen Cummings; Ryan McGowan
Journal:  Nursing       Date:  2011-03

7.  Programming errors contribute to death from patient-controlled analgesia: case report and estimate of probability.

Authors:  Kim J Vicente; Karima Kada-Bekhaled; Gillian Hillel; Andrea Cassano; Beverley A Orser
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 5.063

8.  Analysis of risk factors for adverse drug events in critically ill patients*.

Authors:  Sandra L Kane-Gill; Levent Kirisci; Margaret M Verrico; Jeffrey M Rothschild
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  The impact of traditional and smart pump infusion technology on nurse medication administration performance in a simulated inpatient unit.

Authors:  P L Trbovich; S Pinkney; J A Cafazzo; A C Easty
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2010-04-27

10.  Prevention of medication errors in the pediatric inpatient setting.

Authors:  Erin R Stucky
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.124

View more
  11 in total

1.  Multiple Intravenous Infusions Phase 2b: Laboratory Study.

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

2.  Uncovering Discrepancies in IV Vancomycin Infusion Records between Pump Logs and EHR Documentation.

Authors:  Tsan-Hua Tung; Poching DeLaurentis; Yuehwern Yih
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 2.762

3.  A qualitative analysis of intravenous smart pump usability.

Authors:  Jeannine W C Blake; Sarah M Fiske; Karen K Giuliano
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2022-05-19

4.  Multiple Intravenous Infusions Phase 2a: Ontario Survey.

Authors:  Mark Fan; Christine Koczmara; Caterina Masino; Andrea Cassano-Piché; Patricia Trbovich; Anthony Easty
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2014-05-01

5.  IV Smart Pumps: The Impact of a Simplified User Interface on Clinical Use.

Authors:  Karen K Giuliano
Journal:  Biomed Instrum Technol       Date:  2015

6.  Nurse and Pharmacist Knowledge of Intravenous Smart Pump System Setup Requirements.

Authors:  Karen K Giuliano; Jeannine W C Blake
Journal:  Biomed Instrum Technol       Date:  2021-01-01

7.  Untangling Infusion Confusion: A Comparative Evaluation of Interventions in a Simulated Intensive Care Setting.

Authors:  Sonia J Pinkney; Mark Fan; Christine Koczmara; Patricia L Trbovich
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  The effect of concentration, reconstitution solution and pH on the stability of a remifentanil hydrochloride and propofol admixture for simultaneous co-infusion.

Authors:  Emily Henkel; Rebecca Vella; Kieran Behan; David Austin; Peter Kruger; Andrew Fenning
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.217

9.  Intravenous Smart Pumps During Actual Clinical Use: A Descriptive Comparison of Primary and Secondary Infusion Practices.

Authors:  Karen K Giuliano; Daleen Penoyer; Rebecca S Mahuren; Melody Bennett
Journal:  J Infus Nurs       Date:  2021 May-Jun 01

10.  Intravenous Smart Pumps at the Point of Care: A Descriptive, Observational Study.

Authors:  Karen K Giuliano; Jeannine W C Blake; Nancy Phoenix Bittner; Vicki Gamez; Robert Butterfield
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 2.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.