Cargando…

Errors in the administration of intravenous medications in hospital and the role of correct procedures and nurse experience

BACKGROUND: Intravenous medication administrations have a high incidence of error but there is limited evidence of associated factors or error severity. OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency, type and severity of intravenous administration errors in hospitals and the associations between errors, proce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Westbrook, Johanna I, Rob, Marilyn I, Woods, Amanda, Parry, Dave
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21690248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000089
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Intravenous medication administrations have a high incidence of error but there is limited evidence of associated factors or error severity. OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency, type and severity of intravenous administration errors in hospitals and the associations between errors, procedural failures and nurse experience. METHODS: Prospective observational study of 107 nurses preparing and administering 568 intravenous medications on six wards across two teaching hospitals. Procedural failures (eg, checking patient identification) and clinical intravenous errors (eg, wrong intravenous administration rate) were identified and categorised by severity. RESULTS: Of 568 intravenous administrations, 69.7% (n=396; 95% CI 65.9 to 73.5) had at least one clinical error and 25.5% (95% CI 21.2 to 29.8) of these were serious. Four error types (wrong intravenous rate, mixture, volume, and drug incompatibility) accounted for 91.7% of errors. Wrong rate was the most frequent and accounted for 95 of 101 serious errors. Error rates and severity decreased with clinical experience. Each year of experience, up to 6 years, reduced the risk of error by 10.9% and serious error by 18.5%. Administration by bolus was associated with a 312% increased risk of error. Patient identification was only checked in 47.9% of administrations but was associated with a 56% reduction in intravenous error risk. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous administrations have a higher risk and severity of error than other medication administrations. A significant proportion of errors suggest skill and knowledge deficiencies, with errors and severity reducing as clinical experience increases. A proportion of errors are also associated with routine violations which are likely to be learnt workplace behaviours. Both areas suggest specific targets for intervention.