Is One-Pen, One-Patient Achievable in the Hospital? A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Risks of Inadvertent Insulin Pen Sharing at a Large Academic Medical Center

Ho, Suzanna; Stamm, Rebecca; Hibbs, Melissa; Yoho, Margaret; Regli, Susan Harkness; Lorincz, Ilona

doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.09.002

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 In a large academic medical center, a quality improvement project concluded that with proper medication safety features in place there are major benefits of using insulin pens in the inpatient setting. 26 In a pilot study conducted at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, it was determined that using the EHR to directly integrate patient safety improvements regarding insulin pens offered an opportunity to enhance patient safety. 27 Furthermore, in a prospective, randomized study comparing insulin pens and the vial and syringe method of insulin administration in the hospital setting, was associated with decreased frequency of hyper-and hypo-glycemic events among the insulin pen group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inpatient Insulin Pen Implementation, Waste, and Potential Cost Savings: A Community Hospital Experience

Najmi¹,

Haque

Ansari

et al. 2021

J Diabetes Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Insulin pen injectors (“pens”) are intended to facilitate a patient’s self-administration of insulin and can be used in hospitalized patients as a learning opportunity. Unnecessary or duplicate dispensation of insulin pens is associated with increased healthcare costs. Methods: Inpatient dispensation of insulin pens in a 240-bed community hospital between July 2018 and July 2019 was analyzed. We calculated the percentage of insulin pens unnecessarily dispensed for patients who had the same type of insulin pen assigned. The estimated cost of insulin pen waste was calculated. A pharmacist-led task force group implemented hospital-wide awareness and collaborated with hospital leadership to define goals and interventions. Results: 9516 insulin pens were dispensed to 3121 patients. Of the pens dispensed, 6451 (68%) were insulin aspart and 3065 (32%) were glargine. Among patients on insulin aspart, an average of 2.2 aspart pens was dispensed per patient, but only an estimated 1.2 pens/patient were deemed necessary. Similarly, for inpatients prescribed glargine, an average of 2.1 pens/patient was dispensed, but only 1.3 pens/patient were necessary. A number of gaps were identified and interventions were undertaken to reduce insulin pen waste, which resulted in a significant decrease in both aspart (p = 0.0002) and glargine (p = 0.0005) pens/patient over time. Reductions in pen waste resulted in an estimated cost savings of $66 261 per year. Conclusions: In a community hospital setting, identification of causes leading to unnecessary insulin dispensation and implementation of hospital-wide staff education led to change in insulin pen dispensation practice. These changes translated into considerable cost savings and facilitated diabetes self-management education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%