改进外科预防小剂量抗生素的使用:一个质量改进项目。

Q3 Medicine AANA journal Pub Date : 2023-06-01
Benjamin L Thomas, Brian Torres, Mary Curtis, Ling Chen
{"title":"改进外科预防小剂量抗生素的使用:一个质量改进项目。","authors":"Benjamin L Thomas,&nbsp;Brian Torres,&nbsp;Mary Curtis,&nbsp;Ling Chen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>No clear policy on administration methods for small-volume intravenous antibiotic bags (≤ 100 mL) for surgical prophylaxis lead to wide variation in anesthesia provider practice at a large academic medical center. Administration via secondary tubing is the recommended practice to minimize significant medication losses from dead volumes. An observation of current practice and measurements of dead volumes was followed by an educational intervention on best practices for administration of small-volume antibiotics. Three postintervention cycles were conducted to evaluate change in practice and reductions in dead volumes over a 6-week period. Mean dead volume losses were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. Statistically significant (<i>P</i> = .0012) decreases in dead volume losses were observed postintervention, from 8.48 mL (SD 6.80) to 0.93 mL (SD 1.46). The most common pre- and postintervention tubing sets used were primary tubing (pre) and secondary tubing (post). Mean dead volume losses for these respective tubing sets were 13.45 mL (SD 4.74) and 0.79 mL (SD 1.40) (<i>P</i> < .0001). Preintervention administration methods resulted in incomplete antibiotic administration. Overall, there was a significant reduction in dead volumes of antibiotic by changing practice to secondary tubing. With strong provider acceptance and sustained reduction in medication wastage, this intervention has shown to be a beneficial new practice moving forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":7104,"journal":{"name":"AANA journal","volume":"91 3","pages":"218-225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Small-Volume Antibiotic Administration for Surgical Prophylaxis: A Quality Improvement Project.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin L Thomas,&nbsp;Brian Torres,&nbsp;Mary Curtis,&nbsp;Ling Chen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>No clear policy on administration methods for small-volume intravenous antibiotic bags (≤ 100 mL) for surgical prophylaxis lead to wide variation in anesthesia provider practice at a large academic medical center. Administration via secondary tubing is the recommended practice to minimize significant medication losses from dead volumes. An observation of current practice and measurements of dead volumes was followed by an educational intervention on best practices for administration of small-volume antibiotics. Three postintervention cycles were conducted to evaluate change in practice and reductions in dead volumes over a 6-week period. Mean dead volume losses were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. Statistically significant (<i>P</i> = .0012) decreases in dead volume losses were observed postintervention, from 8.48 mL (SD 6.80) to 0.93 mL (SD 1.46). The most common pre- and postintervention tubing sets used were primary tubing (pre) and secondary tubing (post). Mean dead volume losses for these respective tubing sets were 13.45 mL (SD 4.74) and 0.79 mL (SD 1.40) (<i>P</i> < .0001). Preintervention administration methods resulted in incomplete antibiotic administration. Overall, there was a significant reduction in dead volumes of antibiotic by changing practice to secondary tubing. With strong provider acceptance and sustained reduction in medication wastage, this intervention has shown to be a beneficial new practice moving forward.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AANA journal\",\"volume\":\"91 3\",\"pages\":\"218-225\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AANA journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AANA journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个大型学术医疗中心,小容量静脉抗生素袋(≤100 mL)用于外科预防的给药方法没有明确的政策,导致麻醉提供者的实践存在很大差异。通过二次管道给药是推荐的做法,以尽量减少因死亡量造成的重大药物损失。对目前的做法和死亡量的测量进行了观察,随后进行了关于小剂量抗生素管理最佳做法的教育干预。进行了三个干预后周期,以评估在6周内实践的变化和死亡量的减少。使用单因素方差分析评估平均死体积损失。干预后观察到死亡体积损失从8.48 mL (SD 6.80)减少到0.93 mL (SD 1.46),具有统计学意义(P = 0.0012)。最常用的干预前和干预后油管组是主油管(前)和次油管(后)。这些管组的平均死体积损失分别为13.45 mL (SD 4.74)和0.79 mL (SD 1.40) (P < 0.0001)。干预前给药方法导致抗生素给药不完全。总的来说,通过改变二次插管的做法,抗生素的死亡量显著减少。随着提供者的强烈接受和药物浪费的持续减少,这种干预已被证明是一种有益的新做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving Small-Volume Antibiotic Administration for Surgical Prophylaxis: A Quality Improvement Project.

No clear policy on administration methods for small-volume intravenous antibiotic bags (≤ 100 mL) for surgical prophylaxis lead to wide variation in anesthesia provider practice at a large academic medical center. Administration via secondary tubing is the recommended practice to minimize significant medication losses from dead volumes. An observation of current practice and measurements of dead volumes was followed by an educational intervention on best practices for administration of small-volume antibiotics. Three postintervention cycles were conducted to evaluate change in practice and reductions in dead volumes over a 6-week period. Mean dead volume losses were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. Statistically significant (P = .0012) decreases in dead volume losses were observed postintervention, from 8.48 mL (SD 6.80) to 0.93 mL (SD 1.46). The most common pre- and postintervention tubing sets used were primary tubing (pre) and secondary tubing (post). Mean dead volume losses for these respective tubing sets were 13.45 mL (SD 4.74) and 0.79 mL (SD 1.40) (P < .0001). Preintervention administration methods resulted in incomplete antibiotic administration. Overall, there was a significant reduction in dead volumes of antibiotic by changing practice to secondary tubing. With strong provider acceptance and sustained reduction in medication wastage, this intervention has shown to be a beneficial new practice moving forward.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AANA journal
AANA journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Founded in 1931 and located in Park Ridge, Ill., the AANA is the professional organization for more than 90 percent of the nation’s nurse anesthetists. As advanced practice nurses, CRNAs administer approximately 32 million anesthetics in the United States each year. CRNAs practice in every setting where anesthesia is available and are the sole anesthesia providers in more than two-thirds of all rural hospitals. They administer every type of anesthetic, and provide care for every type of surgery or procedure, from open heart to cataract to pain management.
期刊最新文献
Calendar of Events. Educating the Next Generation of CRNAs. Implementing A Surgical Safety Checklist for In-Office Procedures. Optimizing Workplace Wellness for Nurse Anesthetists: Key Benefits to Consider When Choosing Employment. Sleep: Architecture, Deprivation, and Propofol-Induced Sleep.
×
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