UCL Interaction Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Pain Management Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Nov;27(11):892-901. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007476. Epub 2018 Apr 7.
Intravenous medication administration has traditionally been regarded as error prone, with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error.
To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation, including the contribution of smart pumps.
We conducted an observational point prevalence study of intravenous infusions in 16 National Health Service hospital trusts. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs.
Data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. Errors were observed in 231 infusions (11.5%, 95% CI 10.2% to 13.0%). Discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions (53.0%, 95% CI 50.8% to 55.2%). Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; none were judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of errors and discrepancies varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect, with similar error rates observed in infusions delivered with and without a smart pump (10.3% vs 10.8%, p=0.8).
Errors and discrepancies are relatively common in everyday infusion administrations but most have low potential for patient harm. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be a more helpful tactic than striving to eliminate all deviations.
静脉内药物给药传统上被认为容易出错,有很高的潜在伤害风险。尽管总体错误率很高,但最近美国的一项多地点研究显示,尽管存在潜在的有害错误,但数量很少。然而,关于英格兰的输液实践以及它们与错误的发生率和类型的关系,证据有限。
确定英格兰医院输液管理中错误和差异的发生率、类型和严重程度,并探讨变异的来源,包括智能输液泵的作用。
我们对 16 家国民保健服务医院信托的静脉输液进行了一项观察性时点患病率研究。观察者将每个输液与医嘱和当地政策进行比较。根据对患者造成伤害的潜在风险,将偏差分为错误或差异。在观察者的汇报中,对偏差的背景问题和原因进行了定性探讨。
共收集了 1326 名患者和 2008 例输液数据。在 231 例输液中观察到错误(11.5%,95%CI 10.2%至 13.0%)。在 1065 例输液中观察到差异(53.0%,95%CI 50.8%至 55.2%)。23 例(所有输液的 1.1%)错误被认为可能具有潜在危害性;没有一个被认为可能会延长住院时间或导致长期伤害。各信托机构之间的错误和差异的类型和发生率差异很大,当地政策也存在差异。医嘱和当地政策的偏离有时是为了提高效率或满足患者的需求。智能输液泵的使用效果有限,使用和不使用智能输液泵的输液中观察到的错误率相似(10.3%对 10.8%,p=0.8)。
在日常输液管理中,错误和差异相对常见,但大多数对患者的潜在危害较小。更好地了解绩效变异性,以战略性地管理风险,可能比努力消除所有偏差更有帮助。