Independent Double-check of Infusion Pump Programming: An Anesthesia Improvement Effort to Reduce harm.

K. Raghavan, Jonathan D. Burlison, Edward M. Sanders II, M. Rossi
{"title":"Independent Double-check of Infusion Pump Programming: An Anesthesia Improvement Effort to Reduce harm.","authors":"K. Raghavan, Jonathan D. Burlison, Edward M. Sanders II, M. Rossi","doi":"10.1097/pq9.0000000000000596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Significant adverse drug events (ADEs) due to anesthesia infusion pump programming errors were reported at our institution. We incorporated independent two-provider infusion pump programming verification, an evidence-supported intervention, into our anesthesia medication infusion process with a goal of reducing associated ADEs to zero in 2 years. Methods: Using the model for improvement, we developed key drivers and interventions and utilized plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Drivers included education and training, verification process, visual aids, information technology, and safety culture. Interventions included anesthesia provider training, information dissemination, independent two-provider verification process of smart pump programming, verification documentation capability, verification compliance tracking, and visual aids. Our outcome measures were relevant ADEs and near-miss events. Process and balancing measures were the percentage of smart pump programs with independent second verification and delayed case starts due to second provider verification, respectively. Results: During the project period, only one related grade E ADE occurred, and the root cause was not conducting an independent pump programming verification. Thirteen grade B near-miss events were prevented due to independent second verification. Second verification adherence reached 85% and was sustained, and no delayed case starts occurred. Conclusions: With structured quality improvement methods, the process of independent two-provider verification of infusion pump programming during anesthesia can be successfully implemented, and errors in a high-volume setting reduced without negatively affecting case start times. The cultural and organizational factors we report may aid other institutions in gaining project buy-in and sustainment.","PeriodicalId":343243,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Quality and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Quality and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Significant adverse drug events (ADEs) due to anesthesia infusion pump programming errors were reported at our institution. We incorporated independent two-provider infusion pump programming verification, an evidence-supported intervention, into our anesthesia medication infusion process with a goal of reducing associated ADEs to zero in 2 years. Methods: Using the model for improvement, we developed key drivers and interventions and utilized plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Drivers included education and training, verification process, visual aids, information technology, and safety culture. Interventions included anesthesia provider training, information dissemination, independent two-provider verification process of smart pump programming, verification documentation capability, verification compliance tracking, and visual aids. Our outcome measures were relevant ADEs and near-miss events. Process and balancing measures were the percentage of smart pump programs with independent second verification and delayed case starts due to second provider verification, respectively. Results: During the project period, only one related grade E ADE occurred, and the root cause was not conducting an independent pump programming verification. Thirteen grade B near-miss events were prevented due to independent second verification. Second verification adherence reached 85% and was sustained, and no delayed case starts occurred. Conclusions: With structured quality improvement methods, the process of independent two-provider verification of infusion pump programming during anesthesia can be successfully implemented, and errors in a high-volume setting reduced without negatively affecting case start times. The cultural and organizational factors we report may aid other institutions in gaining project buy-in and sustainment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
输液泵程序的独立复核:减少危害的麻醉改进努力。
导读:我院报告了因麻醉输液泵编程错误引起的严重药物不良事件(ADEs)。我们将独立的双提供者输注泵程序验证(一种证据支持的干预措施)纳入我们的麻醉药物输注过程,目标是在2年内将相关不良事件减少到零。方法:利用改进模型,我们开发了关键驱动因素和干预措施,并利用了计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)循环。驱动因素包括教育和培训、验证过程、视觉辅助、信息技术和安全文化。干预措施包括麻醉提供者培训、信息传播、独立的双提供者智能泵编程验证过程、验证文档能力、验证符合性跟踪和视觉辅助。我们的结局指标是相关的不良事件和未遂事件。过程和平衡措施分别是智能泵程序具有独立的第二次验证和由于第二次提供商验证而延迟启动的百分比。结果:在项目期间,仅发生1例相关的E级ADE,根本原因是没有进行独立的泵编程验证。由于独立的第二次核查,避免了13起B级未遂事件。第二次验证依从性达到85%并且持续,没有延迟病例开始发生。结论:通过结构化的质量改进方法,可以成功实施麻醉过程中独立的两提供者验证输液泵编程的过程,减少了大容量设置中的错误,同时不会对病例启动时间产生负面影响。我们报告的文化和组织因素可以帮助其他机构获得项目的支持和支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving Wait Times for Children with Caregivers with Limited English Proficiency in the Emergency Department Utilizing Clinical Decision Support in the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection across a Large Pediatric Primary Care Network Pediatric Inpatient Leaders, Views Changed with COVID-19: A Call to Re-engage in Quality Improvement Qualitative Study on Safe and Effective Handover Information during a Rapid Response Team Encounter New strategies to Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Use in the NICU: A Quality Improvement Initiative
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1