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

dc.contributor.authorHertig, John B.
dc.contributor.authorDegnan, Daniel D.
dc.contributor.authorScott, Catherine R.
dc.contributor.authorLenz, Janelle R.
dc.contributor.authorLi, Xiaochun
dc.contributor.authorAnderson, Chelsea M.
dc.contributor.departmentBiostatistics, School of Public Healthen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-27T20:24:57Z
dc.date.available2018-08-27T20:24:57Z
dc.date.issued2018-03
dc.description.abstractObjectives 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.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.identifier.citationHertig, J. B., Degnan, D. D., Scott, C. R., Lenz, J. R., Li, X., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). A Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Study. Journal of Patient Safety, 14(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419en_US
dc.identifier.issn1549-8417en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/17199
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1097/PTS.0000000000000419en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Patient Safetyen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us
dc.sourcePublisheren_US
dc.subjectIV push medication administrationen_US
dc.subjectdirect observationen_US
dc.subjectmedication errorsen_US
dc.subjectsafetyen_US
dc.subjecterror ratesen_US
dc.subjectready-to-administer IVen_US
dc.subjectpush medicationen_US
dc.subjectnurse administrationen_US
dc.titleA Comparison of Error Rates Between Intravenous Push Methods: A Prospective, Multisite, Observational Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
A_Comparison_of_Error_Rates_Between_Intravenous.11.pdf
Size:
366.59 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: