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.

Systemic Causes of In-Hospital Intravenous Medication Errors: A Systematic Review

“… 18 , 24 Some manual double-checks could relatively simply be replaced with more reliable technological solutions (e.g., barcode scanning) or even eliminated by reducing error-prone process steps (e.g., reducing preparation errors by using pre-prepared syringes or sealed systems requiring minimal manipulation before use). 8 , 26 – 28 , 34 , 35 …”

Practices and perceptions regarding intravenous opioid infusion and cancer pain management

“…This study underscores the need to increase awareness among health care providers and to develop appropriate iv opioid infusion methods and dosing strategies in routine clinical care. The development of commercially available, portable, ready-to-administer iv push devices or injection devices 31,32 that would automatically deliver the bolus at standard prespecified rates would cut down on human errors during iv administration 33,34 and might help to promote safe iv opioid bolus practices. One possible reason for the fast infusion speed might be that in the fast-pace working environments There was missing information for some covariates.…”

A Continuous Observation Workflow Time Study to Assess Intravenous Push Waste

“…Busy shifts, interruptions, and general comfortability after a few hours of being observed were all inferred as possible explanations for this normalization, following an initial performance peak. 13 Over time, compiled results should average close to practice norms, retaining reasonable external validity. Compliance rates at baseline and during the study were electronically evaluated.…”