Loading…

A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study

Current literature estimates the error rate associated with the preparation and administration of all intravenous (IV) medications to be 9.4% to 97.7% worldwide. This study aims to compare the number of observed medication preparation and administration errors between the only commercially available...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of patient safety 2018-03, Vol.14 (1), p.60-65
Main Authors: Hertig, John B, Degnan, Daniel D, Scott, Catherine R, Lenz, Janelle R, Li, Xiaochun, Anderson, Chelsea M
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3
container_end_page 65
container_issue 1
container_start_page 60
container_title Journal of patient safety
container_volume 14
creator Hertig, John B
Degnan, Daniel D
Scott, Catherine R
Lenz, Janelle R
Li, Xiaochun
Anderson, Chelsea M
description Current literature estimates the error rate associated with the preparation and administration of all intravenous (IV) medications to be 9.4% to 97.7% worldwide. This study aims to compare the number of observed medication preparation and administration errors between the only commercially available ready-to-administer product (Simplist) and IV push traditional practice, including a cartridge-based syringe system (Carpuject) and vials and syringes. A prospective, multisite, observational study was conducted in 3 health systems in various states within the United States between December 2015 and March 2016 to observe IV push medication preparation and administration. Researchers observed a ready-to-administer product and IV push traditional practice using a validated observational method and a modified data collection sheet. All observations were reconciled to the original medication order to determine if any errors occurred. Researchers collected 329 observations (ready to administer = 102; traditional practice = 227) and observed 260 errors (ready to administer = 25; traditional practice = 235). The overall observed error rate for ready-to-administer products was 2.5%, and the observed error rate for IV push traditional practice was 10.4%. The ready-to-administer group demonstrated a statistically significant lower observed error rate, suggesting that use of this product is associated with fewer observed preparation and administration errors in the clinical setting. Future studies should be completed to determine the potential for patient harm associated with these errors and improve clinical practice because it relates to the safe administration of IV push medications.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1938611218</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1938611218</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE9PwkAQxTdGI4h-A2P26MHi_mnprjckqCQQiOC52Xanodp2cXeL4dtbAxLjXOYd3pvJ-yF0TUmfEhnfL1bLPvk7IZUnqEujUAYiZNHpUdO4gy6ceyeED4Rg56jDhCSMkLiLPoZ4ZKqNsoUzNTY5HltrLH5VHhx-BP8FUONJ7a3aQm0ahxeNW-MZ-LXR7gEP8cIat4HMF1u4w7Om9IUrfCvnqQO7Vb4wtSrx0jd6d4nOclU6uDrsHnp7Gq9GL8F0_jwZDadBxiPugyxjIRdpJiI10JpKoHFIWCyIDnkKUSxBMSolJRHVEKUyYznoWCuRa5ED5LyHbvd3N9Z8NuB8UhUug7JUNbQVEiq5GFDKqGit4d6atTWchTzZ2KJSdpdQkvxgTlrMyX_Mbezm8KFJK9DH0C9X_g2X6Xln</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1938611218</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Hertig, John B ; Degnan, Daniel D ; Scott, Catherine R ; Lenz, Janelle R ; Li, Xiaochun ; Anderson, Chelsea M</creator><creatorcontrib>Hertig, John B ; Degnan, Daniel D ; Scott, Catherine R ; Lenz, Janelle R ; Li, Xiaochun ; Anderson, Chelsea M</creatorcontrib><description>Current literature estimates the error rate associated with the preparation and administration of all intravenous (IV) medications to be 9.4% to 97.7% worldwide. This study aims to compare the number of observed medication preparation and administration errors between the only commercially available ready-to-administer product (Simplist) and IV push traditional practice, including a cartridge-based syringe system (Carpuject) and vials and syringes. A prospective, multisite, observational study was conducted in 3 health systems in various states within the United States between December 2015 and March 2016 to observe IV push medication preparation and administration. Researchers observed a ready-to-administer product and IV push traditional practice using a validated observational method and a modified data collection sheet. All observations were reconciled to the original medication order to determine if any errors occurred. Researchers collected 329 observations (ready to administer = 102; traditional practice = 227) and observed 260 errors (ready to administer = 25; traditional practice = 235). The overall observed error rate for ready-to-administer products was 2.5%, and the observed error rate for IV push traditional practice was 10.4%. The ready-to-administer group demonstrated a statistically significant lower observed error rate, suggesting that use of this product is associated with fewer observed preparation and administration errors in the clinical setting. Future studies should be completed to determine the potential for patient harm associated with these errors and improve clinical practice because it relates to the safe administration of IV push medications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-8417</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-8425</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28902007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>Journal of patient safety, 2018-03, Vol.14 (1), p.60-65</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28902007$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hertig, John B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degnan, Daniel D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Catherine R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenz, Janelle R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Xiaochun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Chelsea M</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study</title><title>Journal of patient safety</title><addtitle>J Patient Saf</addtitle><description>Current literature estimates the error rate associated with the preparation and administration of all intravenous (IV) medications to be 9.4% to 97.7% worldwide. This study aims to compare the number of observed medication preparation and administration errors between the only commercially available ready-to-administer product (Simplist) and IV push traditional practice, including a cartridge-based syringe system (Carpuject) and vials and syringes. A prospective, multisite, observational study was conducted in 3 health systems in various states within the United States between December 2015 and March 2016 to observe IV push medication preparation and administration. Researchers observed a ready-to-administer product and IV push traditional practice using a validated observational method and a modified data collection sheet. All observations were reconciled to the original medication order to determine if any errors occurred. Researchers collected 329 observations (ready to administer = 102; traditional practice = 227) and observed 260 errors (ready to administer = 25; traditional practice = 235). The overall observed error rate for ready-to-administer products was 2.5%, and the observed error rate for IV push traditional practice was 10.4%. The ready-to-administer group demonstrated a statistically significant lower observed error rate, suggesting that use of this product is associated with fewer observed preparation and administration errors in the clinical setting. Future studies should be completed to determine the potential for patient harm associated with these errors and improve clinical practice because it relates to the safe administration of IV push medications.</description><issn>1549-8417</issn><issn>1549-8425</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkE9PwkAQxTdGI4h-A2P26MHi_mnprjckqCQQiOC52Xanodp2cXeL4dtbAxLjXOYd3pvJ-yF0TUmfEhnfL1bLPvk7IZUnqEujUAYiZNHpUdO4gy6ceyeED4Rg56jDhCSMkLiLPoZ4ZKqNsoUzNTY5HltrLH5VHhx-BP8FUONJ7a3aQm0ahxeNW-MZ-LXR7gEP8cIat4HMF1u4w7Om9IUrfCvnqQO7Vb4wtSrx0jd6d4nOclU6uDrsHnp7Gq9GL8F0_jwZDadBxiPugyxjIRdpJiI10JpKoHFIWCyIDnkKUSxBMSolJRHVEKUyYznoWCuRa5ED5LyHbvd3N9Z8NuB8UhUug7JUNbQVEiq5GFDKqGit4d6atTWchTzZ2KJSdpdQkvxgTlrMyX_Mbezm8KFJK9DH0C9X_g2X6Xln</recordid><startdate>201803</startdate><enddate>201803</enddate><creator>Hertig, John B</creator><creator>Degnan, Daniel D</creator><creator>Scott, Catherine R</creator><creator>Lenz, Janelle R</creator><creator>Li, Xiaochun</creator><creator>Anderson, Chelsea M</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201803</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study</title><author>Hertig, John B ; Degnan, Daniel D ; Scott, Catherine R ; Lenz, Janelle R ; Li, Xiaochun ; Anderson, Chelsea M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hertig, John B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degnan, Daniel D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Catherine R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenz, Janelle R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Xiaochun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Chelsea M</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of patient safety</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hertig, John B</au><au>Degnan, Daniel D</au><au>Scott, Catherine R</au><au>Lenz, Janelle R</au><au>Li, Xiaochun</au><au>Anderson, Chelsea M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of patient safety</jtitle><addtitle>J Patient Saf</addtitle><date>2018-03</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>60</spage><epage>65</epage><pages>60-65</pages><issn>1549-8417</issn><eissn>1549-8425</eissn><abstract>Current literature estimates the error rate associated with the preparation and administration of all intravenous (IV) medications to be 9.4% to 97.7% worldwide. This study aims to compare the number of observed medication preparation and administration errors between the only commercially available ready-to-administer product (Simplist) and IV push traditional practice, including a cartridge-based syringe system (Carpuject) and vials and syringes. A prospective, multisite, observational study was conducted in 3 health systems in various states within the United States between December 2015 and March 2016 to observe IV push medication preparation and administration. Researchers observed a ready-to-administer product and IV push traditional practice using a validated observational method and a modified data collection sheet. All observations were reconciled to the original medication order to determine if any errors occurred. Researchers collected 329 observations (ready to administer = 102; traditional practice = 227) and observed 260 errors (ready to administer = 25; traditional practice = 235). The overall observed error rate for ready-to-administer products was 2.5%, and the observed error rate for IV push traditional practice was 10.4%. The ready-to-administer group demonstrated a statistically significant lower observed error rate, suggesting that use of this product is associated with fewer observed preparation and administration errors in the clinical setting. Future studies should be completed to determine the potential for patient harm associated with these errors and improve clinical practice because it relates to the safe administration of IV push medications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28902007</pmid><doi>10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1549-8417
ispartof Journal of patient safety, 2018-03, Vol.14 (1), p.60-65
issn 1549-8417
1549-8425
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1938611218
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
title A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T16%3A19%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Error%20Rates%20Between%20Intravenous%20Push%20Methods:%20A%20Prospective,%20Multisite,%20Observational%20Study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20patient%20safety&rft.au=Hertig,%20John%20B&rft.date=2018-03&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=60&rft.epage=65&rft.pages=60-65&rft.issn=1549-8417&rft.eissn=1549-8425&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1938611218%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-cc2438bc85a6dd19e17402780d43be579ea21991051de5b9c2fed7da8fd8feef3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1938611218&rft_id=info:pmid/28902007&rfr_iscdi=true