Amy M Douglass1, Joshua Elder2, Robin Watson3, Tom Kallay1, David Kirsh4, William G Robb5, Amy H Kaji1, Clinton J Coil6. 1. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 3. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA. 4. Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 5. Banner Desert Medical Center, Mesa, AZ. 6. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: ccoil@dhs.lacounty.gov.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. METHODS: Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. RESULTS:Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The use of a double check by 2 nurses has been advocated as a key error-prevention strategy. This study aims to determine how often a double check is used for high-alert medications and whether it increases error detection. METHODS: Emergency department and ICU nurses worked in pairs to care for a simulated patient. Nurses were randomized into single- and double-check groups. Errors intentionally introduced into the simulation included weight-based dosage errors and wrong medication vial errors. The evaluator recorded whether a double check was used, whether errors were detected, and observational data about nurse behavior during the simulation. RESULTS: Forty-three pairs of nurses consented to enroll in the study. All nurses randomized to the double-check group used a double check. In the single-check group, 9% of nurses detected the weight-based dosage error compared with 33% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 27.74). Fifty-four percent of nurses in the single-check group detected the wrong vial error compared with 100% of nurses in the double-check group (odds ratio 19.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 408.5). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that nurses use double checks before administering high-alert medications. Use of a double check increases certain error detection rates in some circumstances, but not others. Both techniques missed many errors. In some cases, the second nurse actually dissuaded the first nurse from acting on the error.
Authors: Alain K Koyama; Claire-Sophie Sheridan Maddox; Ling Li; Tracey Bucknall; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Mohammad H Alyami; Abdallah Y Naser; Hadi S Alswar; Hamad S Alyami; Abdullah H Alyami; Hadi J Al Sulayyim Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Ling Li; Magdalena Z Raban; Amanda Woods; Alain K Koyama; Melissa Therese Baysari; Richard O Day; Cheryl McCullagh; Mirela Prgomet; Virginia Mumford; Luciano Dalla-Pozza; Madlen Gazarian; Peter J Gates; Valentina Lichtner; Peter Barclay; Alan Gardo; Mark Wiggins; Leslie White Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Michael A Rosen; Mark Romig; Zoe Demko; Noah Barasch; Cynthia Dwyer; Peter J Pronovost; Adam Sapirstein Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 7.035