Audits in real time for safety in critical care: Definition and pilot study

Rodríguez, G. Sirgo; Cabases, M. Olona; Delgado, M.C. Martín; Reboll, F. Esteban; Peris, A; Saera, María Bodi

doi:10.1016/j.medin.2013.11.008

Cited by 18 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, this is the first published study with data on real-time audits of monitoring and respiratory support equipment in a level III-C NICU. Compared to the large number of published studies on other aspects of neonatal patient safety [ 10 – 12 ], there are surprisingly few literature references reporting errors directly related to the equipment used [ 3 , 13 , 14 ]. For this reason, it has not been possible to compare many of our results with other studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditing of Monitoring and Respiratory Support Equipment in a Level III-C Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Bergón-Sendín

Perez-Grande

Lora-Pablos

et al. 2015

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Random safety audits (RSAs) are a safety tool but have not been widely used in hospitals. Objectives. To determine the frequency of proper use of equipment safety mechanisms in relation to monitoring and mechanical ventilation by performing RSAs. The study also determined whether factors related to the patient, time period, or characteristics of the area of admission influenced how the device safety systems were used. Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted in a level III-C Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) during 2012. 87 days were randomly selected. Appropriate overall use was defined when all evaluated variables were correctly programmed in the audited device. Results. A total of 383 monitor and ventilator audits were performed. The Kappa coefficient of interobserver agreement was 0.93. The rate of appropriate overall use of the monitors and respiratory support equipment was 33.68%. Significant differences were found with improved usage during weekends, OR 1.85 (1.12–3.06, p = 0.01), and during the late shift (3 pm to 10 pm), OR 1.59 (1.03–2.4, p = 0.03). Conclusions. Equipment safety systems of monitors and ventilators are not properly used. To improve patient safety, we should identify which alarms are really needed and where the difficulties lie for the correct alarm programming.

show abstract