Background Processes for delivery of high-risk infusions in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are complex. Standard concentration infusions (SCIs), smart-pumps, and electronic prescribing are recommended medication error reduction strategies. Implementation rates in Europe lag behind those in the United States. Since 2012, the PICU of an Irish tertiary pediatric hospital has been using a smart-pump SCI library, interfaced with electronic infusion orders (Philips ICCA). The incidence of infusion errors is unknown. Objectives To determine the frequency, severity, and distribution of smart-pump infusion errors in PICUs. Methods Programmed infusions were directly observed at the bedside. Parameters were compared against medication orders and autodocumented infusion data. Identified deviations were categorized as medication errors or discrepancies. Error rates (%) were calculated as infusions with errors and errors per opportunities for error (OEs). Predefined definitions, multidisciplinary consensus and grading processes were employed. Results A total of 1,023 infusions for 175 patients were directly observed over 27 days between February and September 2017. The drug library accommodated 96.5% of infusions. Compliance with the drug library was 98.9%. A total of 133 infusions had ≥1 error (13.0%); a further 58 (5.7%) had ≥1 discrepancy. From a total of 4,997 OEs, 153 errors (3.1%) and 107 discrepancies (2.1%) were observed. Undocumented bolus doses were most commonly identified (n = 81); this was the only deviation in 36.1% (n = 69) of infusions. Programming errors were rare (0.32% OE). Errors were minor, with just one requiring minimal intervention to prevent harm. Conclusion The error rates identified are low compared with similar studies, highlighting the benefits of smart-pumps and autodocumented infusion data in PICUs. A range of quality improvement opportunities has been identified.

AimsProcesses for delivery of high-risk infusions in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are complex. Standard concentration infusions (SCIs), smart-pumps and electronic prescribing are recommended medication error reduction strategies.1 2 Implementation rates are low in Irish and UK hospitals.2 3 Since 2012, the PICU of an Irish tertiary paediatric hospital has been using a smart-pump SCI library, interfaced with electronic infusion orders (Philips ICCA®). The incidence of infusion errors is unknown. This study aims to determine the frequency, severity and distribution of smart-pump infusion errors and to identify contributory factors to the occurrence of infusion errors.MethodsProgrammed infusions are directly observed at the bedside. Parameters are compared against medication orders and auto-populated infusion data. Identified deviations are categorised as either medication errors or discrepancies. Five opportunities for error (OEs) were identified: programming, administration, documentation, assignment, data transfer. Error rates (%) are calculated as: infusions with errors; and errors per OE. Pre-defined definitions, multi-disciplinary consensus and grading processes are employed.ResultsA total of 1023 infusions for 175 patients were directly observed on 27 days between February and September 2017. 74% of patients were under 1 year, 32% under 1 month. The drug-library accommodated 96.5% of all infusions. Compliance with the drug-library was 98.9%. 55 infusions had ≥ 1 error (5.4%); a further 67 (6.3%) had ≥ 1 discrepancy. From a total of 4997 OEs, 72 errors (1.4%) and 107 discrepancies (2.1%) were observed. Documentation errors were most common; programming errors were rare (0.32% OE). Errors are minor, with just one requiring minimal intervention to prevent harm.ConclusionThis study has highlighted the benefits of smart-pumps and auto-populated infusion data in the PICU setting. Identified error rates are low compared to similar studies.4 The findings will contribute to the limited existing knowledge base on impact of these interventions on paediatric infusion administration errors.ReferencesInstitute for Safe Medication Practices, ISMP. 2018–2019 Targeted medication safety best practices for hospitals2018 [Available from: http://www.ismp.org/tools/bestpractices/TMSBP-for-Hospitalsv2.pdf [Accessed: June 2019]Oskarsdottir T, Harris D, Sutherland A, et al. A national scoping survey of standard infusions in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom. J Pharm Pharmacol 2018;70:1324–1331.Howlett M, Curtin M, Doherty D, Gleeson P, Sheerin M, Breatnach C. Paediatric standardised concentration infusions – A national solution. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:e2.Blandford A, Dykes PC, Franklin BD, et al. Intravenous Infusion Administration: A comparative study of practices and errors between the United States and England and their Implications for patient safety. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1157–1165

Bronchiolitis is one of the commonest illnesses requiring paediatric hospital admission. How good are we as a team at predicting those likely to deteriorate in the next 24 hours?Situational awareness is crucial in identifying the deteriorating patient, allowing prompt intervention and resource planning.

AimTo date there are no metrics for the clinical pharmacist service to PICU. It is accepted that use of a Clinical Information Management System (CIMS) has a role in medication safety,1 however there are few studies that review the information potential of a CIMS for collecting pharmacist activity.2MethodAdditional fields and custom reports were configured in the CIMS to enable PICU pharmacists to record their activity in the following areas:Medicines reconciliation within 72 hours of admission to PICUDischarge kardex reviewAnalgesia and sedation (A&S) reviewClinical pharmacy reviewOther interventions & medication error reporting continued as per normal practice. Data was analysed using Microsoft Excel®.ResultsComplete data was available from July 2017 to end of 2018.There were 1274 medicines reconciliations by a pharmacist within 72 hours of admission (78% admissions). 14% of discharge kardexes had been reviewed prior to discharge to the ward. There was an average of 190 pharmacy reviews per 100 bed days. A total of 780 Pharmacist A&S Plans were documented by the clinical pharmacists – an average of 2 per working day, and 48% of admissions.Comparisons between each six month period showed a significant increase in the number of pharmacists medicines reconciliations (p<0.001). No other differences were found.ConclusionThis study has shown that electronic tracking of pharmacist ward activity is possible. It has the potential to demonstrate compliance with external or internal standards and audits. This data continues to be collected, and therefore these results will be used as a baseline to compare future activity. The findings of this study may encourage other units to replicate, providing data that can be used for comparison. Further configuration of the CIMS to capture other metrics such as TDM, and document discrepancies in medicines reconciliation is planned.ReferencesForni A, Chu H, Fanikos J. Technology Utilization to Prevent Medication Errors. Current Drug Safety. 2010;5:13–18.Nelson S, Poikonen J, Reese T, El Halta D, Weir C. The pharmacist and the EHR. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2016;24:193–197.Health and Information Quality Authority. Guidance for health and social care providers; Principles of good practice in medication reconciliation. Dublin: HIQA; 2014