INTRODUCTION: Intravenous medication errors persist despite the use of smart pumps. This suggests the need for a standardised methodology for measuring errors and highlights the importance of identifying issues around smart pump medication administration in order to improve patient safety. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multisite study to investigate the types and frequency of intravenous medication errors associated with smart pumps in the USA. METHODS: 10 hospitals of various sizes using smart pumps from a range of vendors participated. Data were collected using a prospective point prevalence approach to capture errors associated with medications administered via smart pumps and evaluate their potential for harm. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients and 1164 medication administrations were assessed. Of the observed infusions, 699 (60%) had one or more errors associated with their administration. Identified errors such as labelling errors and bypassing the smart pump and the drug library were predominantly associated with violations of hospital policy. These types of errors can result in medication errors. Errors were classified according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP). 1 error of category E (0.1%), 4 of category D (0.3%) and 492 of category C (excluding deviations of hospital policy) (42%) were identified. Of these, unauthorised medication, bypassing the smart pump and wrong rate were the most frequent errors. CONCLUSION: We identified a high rate of error in the administration of intravenous medications despite the use of smart pumps. However, relatively few errors were potentially harmful. The results of this study will be useful in developing interventions to eliminate errors in the intravenous medication administration process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous medication errors persist despite the use of smart pumps. This suggests the need for a standardised methodology for measuring errors and highlights the importance of identifying issues around smart pump medication administration in order to improve patient safety. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multisite study to investigate the types and frequency of intravenous medication errors associated with smart pumps in the USA. METHODS: 10 hospitals of various sizes using smart pumps from a range of vendors participated. Data were collected using a prospective point prevalence approach to capture errors associated with medications administered via smart pumps and evaluate their potential for harm. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients and 1164 medication administrations were assessed. Of the observed infusions, 699 (60%) had one or more errors associated with their administration. Identified errors such as labelling errors and bypassing the smart pump and the drug library were predominantly associated with violations of hospital policy. These types of errors can result in medication errors. Errors were classified according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP). 1 error of category E (0.1%), 4 of category D (0.3%) and 492 of category C (excluding deviations of hospital policy) (42%) were identified. Of these, unauthorised medication, bypassing the smart pump and wrong rate were the most frequent errors. CONCLUSION: We identified a high rate of error in the administration of intravenous medications despite the use of smart pumps. However, relatively few errors were potentially harmful. The results of this study will be useful in developing interventions to eliminate errors in the intravenous medication administration process. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Healthcare quality improvement; Information technology; Medication safety; Near miss; Quality improvement
Authors: Gail E Armstrong; Mary Dietrich; Linda Norman; Jane Barnsteiner; Lorraine Mion Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2017 Apr/Jun Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: Kumiko O Schnock; Patricia C Dykes; Jennifer Albert; Deborah Ariosto; Caitlin Cameron; Diane L Carroll; Moreen Donahue; Adrienne G Drucker; Rosemary Duncan; Linda Fang; Marla Husch; Nicole McDonald; Ray R Maddox; Julie McGuire; Sally Rafie; Emilee Robertson; Melinda Sawyer; Elizabeth Wade; Catherine S Yoon; Stuart Lipsitz; David W Bates Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Frederic Ehrler; Johan N Siebert; Christian Lovis; Christophe Combescure; Kevin Haddad; Alain Gervaix; Sergio Manzano Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-08-22
Authors: Johan N Siebert; Frederic Ehrler; Christophe Combescure; Laurence Lacroix; Kevin Haddad; Oliver Sanchez; Alain Gervaix; Christian Lovis; Sergio Manzano Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Imogen Lyons; Dominic Furniss; Ann Blandford; Gillian Chumbley; Ioanna Iacovides; Li Wei; Anna Cox; Astrid Mayer; Jolien Vos; Galal H Galal-Edeen; Kumiko O Schnock; Patricia C Dykes; David W Bates; Bryony Dean Franklin Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Dominic Furniss; Imogen Lyons; Bryony Dean Franklin; Astrid Mayer; Gillian Chumbley; Li Wei; Anna L Cox; Jolien Vos; Galal Galal-Edeen; Ann Blandford Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 2.655