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

John B. Hertig, Daniel D. Degnan, Catherine R. Scott, Janelle R. Lenz, Xiaochun Li, Chelsea M. Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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%. Conclusions 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.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages60-65
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Patient Safety
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Syringes
Intravenous Administration
Observational Studies
Research Personnel
Patient Harm
Health

Keywords

  • direct observation
  • error rates
  • IV push medication administration
  • medication errors
  • nurse administration
  • ready-to-administer IV push medication
  • safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

A Comparison of Error Rates between Intravenous Push Methods : A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study. / Hertig, John B.; Degnan, Daniel D.; Scott, Catherine R.; Lenz, Janelle R.; Li, Xiaochun; Anderson, Chelsea M.

In: Journal of Patient Safety, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.03.2018, p. 60-65.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hertig, John B. ; Degnan, Daniel D. ; Scott, Catherine R. ; Lenz, Janelle R. ; Li, Xiaochun ; Anderson, Chelsea M. / A Comparison of Error Rates between Intravenous Push Methods : A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study. In: Journal of Patient Safety. 2018 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 60-65.
@article{c662cb1ad2744b55a38a346c42164931,
title = "A Comparison of Error Rates between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study",
abstract = "Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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{\%}. Conclusions 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.",
keywords = "direct observation, error rates, IV push medication administration, medication errors, nurse administration, ready-to-administer IV push medication, safety",
author = "Hertig, {John B.} and Degnan, {Daniel D.} and Scott, {Catherine R.} and Lenz, {Janelle R.} and Xiaochun Li and Anderson, {Chelsea M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "60--65",
journal = "Journal of Patient Safety",
issn = "1549-8417",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparison of Error Rates between Intravenous Push Methods

T2 - Journal of Patient Safety

AU - Hertig, John B.

AU - Degnan, Daniel D.

AU - Scott, Catherine R.

AU - Lenz, Janelle R.

AU - Li, Xiaochun

AU - Anderson, Chelsea M.

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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%. Conclusions 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.

AB - Objectives 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. Methods 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. Results 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%. Conclusions 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.

KW - direct observation

KW - error rates

KW - IV push medication administration

KW - medication errors

KW - nurse administration

KW - ready-to-administer IV push medication

KW - safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042759834&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042759834&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419

DO - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 60

EP - 65

JO - Journal of Patient Safety

JF - Journal of Patient Safety

SN - 1549-8417

IS - 1

ER -