Comparison of safety and usability between peristaltic and pneumatic large-volume intravenous smart pumps during actual clinical use

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Innovations Pub Date : 2022-01-18 DOI:10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000851
D. Penoyer, K. Giuliano, Aurea Middleton
{"title":"Comparison of safety and usability between peristaltic and pneumatic large-volume intravenous smart pumps during actual clinical use","authors":"D. Penoyer, K. Giuliano, Aurea Middleton","doi":"10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To describe and compare safety and usability between a peristaltic large-volume intravenous smart pump (IVSP) and a novel pneumatic large-volume IVSP during clinical use. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a large, tertiary hospital in the southeastern USA. Safety and usability were measured by observation during medication administration (medication administration error, interruptions, programming time), dose error reduction system (DERS) compliance, end-user surveys and compliance with manufacturer setup requirements. Study implementation began on a small pilot unit for 1 month, followed by data collection on the study unit over 2 months. Results For the observed medication administrations (N=158): 79 peristaltic (36 primary; 43 secondary) and 79 pneumatic (42 primary; 37 secondary), use of the peristaltic IVSP was associated with significantly (p<0.05) higher medication administration errors and programming time (11.9 s) and a significantly higher number of interruptions during programming. DERS compliance was significantly less (p<0.001) with the peristaltic (75.9%) as compared with the pneumatic IVSP (99.8%). Programming workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) was significantly (p=0.004) higher with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP, and the usability (System Usability Scale) was significantly (p=0.007) lower with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP. There was a 0% compliance with peristaltic secondary setup requirements in 43 observed infusions. Conclusions Though nurses had a high level of experience with the peristaltic IVSP, results of this study support that the pneumatic IVSP was easier to use and associated with fewer errors and deviations from safe practices as compared with the peristaltic IVSP.","PeriodicalId":53454,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Innovations","volume":"148 1","pages":"78 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2021-000851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective To describe and compare safety and usability between a peristaltic large-volume intravenous smart pump (IVSP) and a novel pneumatic large-volume IVSP during clinical use. Methods A prospective, comparative study was conducted in a large, tertiary hospital in the southeastern USA. Safety and usability were measured by observation during medication administration (medication administration error, interruptions, programming time), dose error reduction system (DERS) compliance, end-user surveys and compliance with manufacturer setup requirements. Study implementation began on a small pilot unit for 1 month, followed by data collection on the study unit over 2 months. Results For the observed medication administrations (N=158): 79 peristaltic (36 primary; 43 secondary) and 79 pneumatic (42 primary; 37 secondary), use of the peristaltic IVSP was associated with significantly (p<0.05) higher medication administration errors and programming time (11.9 s) and a significantly higher number of interruptions during programming. DERS compliance was significantly less (p<0.001) with the peristaltic (75.9%) as compared with the pneumatic IVSP (99.8%). Programming workload (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) was significantly (p=0.004) higher with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP, and the usability (System Usability Scale) was significantly (p=0.007) lower with peristaltic versus pneumatic IVSP. There was a 0% compliance with peristaltic secondary setup requirements in 43 observed infusions. Conclusions Though nurses had a high level of experience with the peristaltic IVSP, results of this study support that the pneumatic IVSP was easier to use and associated with fewer errors and deviations from safe practices as compared with the peristaltic IVSP.
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
大容量静脉智能泵在实际应用中的安全性和可用性比较
目的描述并比较蠕动式大容量静脉智能泵(IVSP)与新型气动式大容量静脉智能泵在临床使用中的安全性和可用性。方法在美国东南部一家大型三级医院进行前瞻性比较研究。通过给药期间的观察(给药错误、中断、编程时间)、剂量误差减少系统(DERS)的依从性、最终用户调查和对制造商设置要求的依从性来衡量安全性和可用性。研究在一个小型试点单位实施了1个月,随后在研究单位收集了2个月的数据。结果观察到的给药情况(N=158):蠕动性79例(原发性36例;43次)和79次气动(42次;37次要),使用蠕动IVSP与较高的给药错误和编程时间(11.9 s)以及编程中断次数显著相关(p<0.05)。与气动IVSP(99.8%)相比,蠕动IVSP(75.9%)的DERS依从性显著降低(p<0.001)。与气动IVSP相比,蠕动IVSP的编程工作量(美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数)显著(p=0.004)更高,而可用性(系统可用性量表)显著(p=0.007)更低。在观察到的43例输液中,0%符合蠕动二次设置要求。结论虽然护士对蠕动IVSP有较高的经验,但本研究的结果支持与蠕动IVSP相比,气动IVSP更容易使用,错误和偏离安全操作的次数更少。
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
BMJ Innovations
BMJ Innovations Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Healthcare is undergoing a revolution and novel medical technologies are being developed to treat patients in better and faster ways. Mobile revolution has put a handheld computer in pockets of billions and we are ushering in an era of mHealth. In developed and developing world alike healthcare costs are a concern and frugal innovations are being promoted for bringing down the costs of healthcare. BMJ Innovations aims to promote innovative research which creates new, cost-effective medical devices, technologies, processes and systems that improve patient care, with particular focus on the needs of patients, physicians, and the health care industry as a whole and act as a platform to catalyse and seed more innovations. Submissions to BMJ Innovations will be considered from all clinical areas of medicine along with business and process innovations that make healthcare accessible and affordable. Submissions from groups of investigators engaged in international collaborations are especially encouraged. The broad areas of innovations that this journal aims to chronicle include but are not limited to: Medical devices, mHealth and wearable health technologies, Assistive technologies, Diagnostics, Health IT, systems and process innovation.
期刊最新文献
Biomechanical analysis of delivering chest compressions in virtual reality simulation: preliminary insights into fidelity and validity of virtual reality as a means of delivering life support training iCount: a human-factors engineered solution to vaginal swab retention – an early-stage innovation report Spreading and scaling innovation and improvement: understanding why the differences matter Role of twinnings in scaling up innovative solutions across Europe Wings of Healing: regulatory landscape, case studies and the Indian prologue of drones in healthcare
×
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