Make smart pumps work harder to keep patients safe

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Joey Sweeney
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Bussières

AbstractThe objective of this paper was to present 12 examples of the challenges of parenteral drug administration that hospital pharmacists and other clinicians face. These examples were presented as part of a talk during the International Symposium on Infusion Technologies in November 2016. Issues included the safety and compatibility of syringes, filtration, smart pumps, beyond-use dates, closed-system transfer devices, risk measurement, traceability and labeling.


2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (7) ◽  
pp. e2.2-e2
Author(s):  
Nurain Binti Abu Hasan ◽  
Andrew Wignell

AimInfusion pumps are commonly used to administer medicines by intravenous infusion. Traditionally, pumps are programmed by simply entering the required number of millilitres (mL) per hour, and there has been no mechanism whereby the pump can alert the operator to a programming error e.g. the wrong mL/hour rate being entered.More recently, ‘smart’ infusion pumps have become available which have in-built drug libraries. For each drug, defined dosing limits are set. Users are required to reconfirm the selected infusion rate when ‘soft’ limits are overridden and the infusion cannot be commenced if ‘hard’ limits are exceeded. Soft and hard limits can also be set for the administration of boluses from continuous infusions. This study aimed to evaluate the introduction of smart syringe pumps into a UK PICU by objective assessment of compliance with drug library use, and by obtaining direct feedback from nursing staff.MethodsData was collected over a 4 week period, immediately following the introduction of new Alaris CC smart syringe pumps. Objective assessment of drug library use utilised a piloted data collection form. One form was completed for each infusion running at the time of daily data collection. The prescription, syringe label, and programmed pump parameters were checked for each infusion and any discrepancies noted. Where the drug library was not being used, reasons for non-use were recorded. Nursing views on the benefits and potential risks of the new smart syringe pumps were determined through individual and group interviews, each following the same pre-prepared format.Results79 individual drug infusions were observed. 4 (5%) were being given without using the drug library, i.e. just in terms of mL/hour; in all cases, the explanation was the fact that the drug was not included in the library. 73 (92%) of the infusions observed were continuous, the remainder intermittent. 13 nurses were interviewed: the unanimous view was that the new smart pumps improved patient safety. One nurse described a situation where the smart pump had prevented a 10-fold paracetamol overdose. Many nurses commented that pre-defined sedation boluses were a definite patient-safety benefit, both in terms of preventing incorrect dosing or the bolusing of the wrong drug. Nurses, in general, felt that the safety benefits of smart pumps applied equally to intermittent and continuous infusions. Nurses found the drug libraries easy to use, and whilst infusion set-up may take marginally longer with the drug libraries than without, this was offset by patient safety benefits. It was noted that the longer time taken to programme the pumps may diminish as familiarity increases. A small number of minor issues with the drug library were identified through nursing feedback, though none of them were patient-safety critical. This has allowed the drug library to be modified before the same pumps are also introduced to general wards across the Children’s Hospital.ConclusionThe drug libraries in the new smart syringe pumps were being routinely and correctly used throughout the study period. Nursing staff had embraced the new technology, seeing clear patient safety benefits.


Nursing ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen K. Giuliano ◽  
Halley Ruppel
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley D. Kufel ◽  
Christopher D. Miller ◽  
Paul R. Johnson ◽  
Kaleigh Reid ◽  
James J. Zahra ◽  
...  

Background Published literature has demonstrated commercially available premix vancomycin (5 mg/mL) and piperacillin-tazobactam (67.5 mg/mL) as physically compatible via simulated Y-site methodology. Compatibility via actual Y-site infusion has yet to be established. Objective To assess and compare the compatibility of commercially available premix concentrations of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam via simulated and actual Y-site evaluation. Methods Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam were tested using simulated and actual Y-site infusion methodologies. Simulated Y-site compatibility was performed using previously published methods via visual inspection, turbidity evaluation, and pH evaluation. Evaluation occurred immediately, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, and 240 minutes following mixing for each mixture and control. Mixtures were considered physically incompatible if there was visual evidence of precipitation or haze, an absorbance value was greater than 0.01 A, or an absolute change of 1.0 pH unit occurred. Actual Y-site infusion was simulated to mirror antibiotic infusion in the clinical setting by nursing personnel using smart pumps and intravenous tubing. Results No evidence of physical incompatibility was observed during simulated Y-site testing via visual inspection, turbidity assessment, and pH evaluation. Conversely, physical incompatibility was observed to the unaided eye within 2 minutes during actual Y-site infusion. Conclusions Despite observed compatibility between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam via simulated Y-site testing, visual evidence of physical incompatibility was observed during actual Y-site infusion. This poses a potential compromise to patient safety if these antibiotics are administered simultaneously in the clinical setting. Actual Y-site testing should be performed prior to clinical adoption of compatibility studies that are based solely on simulated methodologies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Robert Kavanagh ◽  
Lindsay Trout ◽  
Amanda Kells ◽  
Gary Ceneviva

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (s1) ◽  
pp. 64-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Pinkney ◽  
Patricia Trbovich ◽  
Mark Fan ◽  
Sarah Rothwell ◽  
Joseph A. Cafazzo ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Manrique-Rodríguez ◽  
Amelia Sánchez-Galindo ◽  
Cecilia M. Fernández-Llamazares ◽  
Jesús López-Herce ◽  
Isabel García-López ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document