Background There is a paucity of quantitative evidence in the current literature on the incidence of wrong medication and wrong dose administration of intravenous medications by clinicians. The difficulties of obtaining reliable data are related to the fact that at this stage of the medication administration chain, detection of errors is extremely difficult. Smart pump medication library logs and their reporting software record medication and dose selections made by users, as well as cancellations of selections and the time between these actions. Analysis of these data adds quantitative data to the detection of these kinds of errors. Objective We aimed to establish, in a reproducible and reliable study, baseline data to show how metrics in the set-up and programming phase of intravenous medication administration can be produced from medication library near-miss error reports from infusion pumps. Methods We performed a 12-month retrospective review of medication library reports from infusion pumps from across a facility to obtain metrics on the set-up phase of intravenous medication administration. Cancelled infusions and resolutions of all infusion alerts by users were analyzed. Decision times of clinicians were calculated from the time-date stamps of the pumps’ logs. Results Incorrect medication selections represented 3.45% (10,017/290,807) of all medication library alerts and 22.40% (10,017/44,721) of all cancelled infusions. Of these cancelled medications, all high-risk medications, oncology medications, and all intravenous medications delivered to pediatric patients and neonates required a two-nurse check according to the local policy. Wrong dose selection was responsible for 2.93% (8533/290,807) of all alarms and 19.08% (8533/44,721) of infusion cancellations. Average error recognition to cancellation and correction times were 27.00 s (SD 22.25) for medication error correction and 26.52 s (SD 24.71) for dose correction. The mean character count of medications corrected from initial lookalike-soundalike selection errors was 13.04, with a heavier distribution toward higher character counts. The position of the word/phrase error was spread among name beginning (6991/10,017, 69.79%), middle (2144/10,017, 21.40%), and end (882/10,017, 8.80%). Conclusions The study identified a high number of lookalike-soundalike near miss errors, with cancellation of one medication being rapidly followed by the programming of a second. This phenomenon was largely centered on initial misreadings of the beginning of the medication name, with some incidences of misreading in the middle and end portions of medication nomenclature. The value of an infusion pump showing the entire medication name complete with TALLman lettering on the interface matching that of medication labeling is supported by these findings. The study provides a quantitative appraisal of an area that has been resistant to study and measurement, which is the number of intravenous medication administration errors of wrong medication and wrong dose that occur in clinical settings.

Purpose: Intravenous (IV) drugs prepared by a robotic device offer additional safeguards and advantages, which result in decreased errors and wastage, operational efficiency, and a retrievable electronic audit trail when compared with the traditional method of IV drug compounding. Objectives: To describe the real-world experience of using Robotic IV Automation (RIVA; ARxIUM) from its implementation phase (August-December 2014) through to its operational phase (March 2015-March 2018) for batch compounding of small-volume preparations. Method: The Data Warehouse and Analytics were used extensively to generate reports for batch-prepared small-volume preparations from the implementation phase (August 2014-December 2014) through to the operational phase (March 2015-March 2018). These reports analyzed cleaning history, doses produced by drug and size, waiting times, daily usage and the rejection rate data of RIVA. A self-administered structured questionnaire with open-ended and closed questions was administered to the experienced stakeholders on the performance of RIVA after the evaluation period. The response scales used anchors such as 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The questionnaire contained a 5-point Likert scale of 16 domains, including demographic data. Results: The number of sterile products prepared by the robot averaged about 5000 per month when it was fully operational (March 2015-April 2018). The highest number of daily preparations was 335 with an average of 262 during our evaluation period; this involved 21 production queues and a run time of 17:42 h/d and an average of 16:33 h/d/wk. We were able to operate the robot at about 45% of its true capacity; this enabled us to prepare a minimum of 30% of the small-volume parenteral preparations required at the time. Responses from the closed questions resulted in the agreeance that the overall impression of RIVA was “very good.” The safety features of RIVA had a median score of being “very safe.” The real impact of the automation was felt during the downtime of the IV robot; at this point, staff could evaluate the impact the robot had on the work flow within the IV room. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that it is feasible to replace some of the manual compounding of small-volume parenteral preparations through batch compounding using an IV robotic device. Despite operating the robot at about 45% of its true capacity, we prepared a minimum of 30% of our high-load small-volume parenteral preparations, which was our goal. Having proactive inventory planning would maximize the use of the IV robot and reduce the idle time, thus enabling the robot to function to its maximum potential and increase its efficiency.

Background There is a paucity of information in the literature on core nursing staff knowledge on the requirements of specific intravenous administration lines for medications regularly given in critical care. There is also a lack of well-researched and appropriate information in the literature for intravenous administration line selection, and the need for filtration, protection from light, and other line-material selection precautions for many critical and noncritical medications used in these settings to maintain their potency and efficacy. Objective We aimed to assess the knowledge gap of clinicians with respect to intravenous administration line set material requirements for critical care medications. Methods Data were drawn from a clinician knowledge questionnaire, a region-wide database of administered infusions, and regional data on standard and special intravenous administration line consumption for 1 year (2019-2020) from an enterprise resource planning system log. The clinician knowledge questionnaire was validated with 3 groups (n=35) and then released for a general survey of critical care nurses (n=72) by assessing response dispersal and interrater reliability (Cronbach α=.889). Correct answers were determined by referencing available literature, with consensus between the team’s pharmacists. Percentage deviations from correct answers (which had multiple possible selections) were calculated for control and test groups. We reviewed all 3 sources of information to identify the gap between required usage and real usage, and the impact of knowledge deficits on this disparity. Results Percentage deviations from correct answers were substantial in the control groups and extensive in the test group for all medications tested (percentage deviation range –43% to 93%), with the exception of for total parenteral nutrition. Respondents scored poorly on questions about medications requiring light protection, and there was a difference of 2.75% between actual consumption of lines and expected consumption based on medication type requirement. Confusion over the requirements for low-sorbing lines, light protection of infusions, and the requirement for filtration of specific solutions was evident in all evidence sources. The consumption of low-sorbing lines (125,090/1,454,440, 8.60%) was larger than the regional data of medication usage data would suggest as being appropriate (15,063/592,392, 2.54%). Conclusions There is no single source of truth for clinicians on the interactions of critical care intravenous medications and administration line materials, protection from light, and filtration. Nursing staff showed limited knowledge of these requirements. To reduce clinical variability in this area, it is desirable to have succinct easy-to-access information available for clinicians to make decisions on which administration line type to use for each medication. The study’s results will be used to formulate solutions for bedside delivery of accurate information on special intravenous line requirements for critical care medications.

BACKGROUND There is a paucity of information in the literature on core nursing staff knowledge on the requirements of specific intravenous administration lines for medications regularly given in critical care. There is also a lack of well-researched and appropriate information in the literature for IV-administration line selection, and the need for filtration, light-protection and other line-material selection precautions for many critical and non-critical medications used in these speciality areas to maintain their potency and efficacy. OBJECTIVE Creation of a verified and replicable survey tool to assess the knowledge base of clinicians of administration sets for critical care medications, and to triangulate the information obtained against data for administration line consumption and individual medication-type utilization. This evidence will be taken forward to suggest solutions of information availability for accurate selection of speciality IV-administration lines. METHODS Data was drawn from a clinician knowledge questionnaire, a region-wide database of administered infusions, and regional data on standard and specialty IV-administration lines consumption for one year from an Enterprise Resource Planning system log. The clinician knowledge questionnaire was validated with three control groups (n=35) and then released for a general survey of critical care nurses. (n=72) Prospective validation was made by review of response dispersal. (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8889) Correct answers were assessed by reference to the available literature and through consensus between the team’s pharmacists. Answers from the control and test groups were calculated as deviations from the correct answer (multiple selections). Mapping between the three sources of information was undertaken to identify the gap between required usage and real usage, and the knowledge deficit that impacts on this disparity. RESULTS Deviations by percentage from fully correct selections on the questionnaire were substantial in the control group and extensive in the test group. Confusion over the requirements for low-sorbing lines, light protection of infusions, and the requirement for filtration of specific solutions was evident. The data on projected specialty line requirement by medication type and actual consumption in the region showed a degree of disparity, with considerable underusage of lines that protect infusions from light, and possible over-usage for low-sorbing lines. In both the questionnaires and in the data on usage versus projected requirement there was considerable agreement on the need for speciality lines for Total Parental Nutrition. CONCLUSIONS There is no single source of truth for clinicians on the interactions of critical care IV-medications and administration line materials and light, and on the need for filtration. It is evident that nursing staff have limited knowledge of these requirements. To reduce clinical variability in this area it is desirable to have succinct, easy to access information available for clinicians to make decisions on which administration line type to use for each medication.

No abstract