K. Raghavan, Jonathan D. Burlison, Edward M. Sanders II, M. Rossi
{"title":"输液泵程序的独立复核:减少危害的麻醉改进努力。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Independent Double-check of Infusion Pump Programming: An Anesthesia Improvement Effort to Reduce harm.
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.