To National Patient Safety Agency or not to National Patient Safety Agency: an audit on the current trends in paediatric intravenous fluid prescribing for surgical patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. e9.2-e10
Author(s):  
Junaid E Birmingham
2010 ◽  
Vol 95 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A46.1-A46
Author(s):  
S Drysdale ◽  
T Coulson ◽  
N Cronin ◽  
Z-R Manjaly ◽  
C Piyasena ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 169 (7) ◽  
pp. 813-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon B. Drysdale ◽  
Timothy Coulson ◽  
Natalie Cronin ◽  
Zita-Rose Manjaly ◽  
Chinthika Piyasena ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (7) ◽  
pp. e2.49-e2
Author(s):  
Susie Gage

AimThe National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA)1 identified heparin as a major cause of adverse events associated with adverse incidents, including some fatalities. By ensuring good communication, this should be associated with risk reduction.1 The aim of this study was to ensure there is clear anticoagulation communication on discharge, from the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) electronic prescribing system (Philips), to the paediatric cardiac high dependency unit and paediatric cardiac ward. To investigate whether the heparin regimen complies with the hospital’s anticoagulant guidelines and if there is any deviation; that this is clearly documented. To find out if there is an indication documented for the heparin regimen chosen and if there is a clear long term plan documented for the patient, after heparin cessation.MethodsA report was generated for all patients who were prescribed a heparin infusion on PICU, between 1st January 2018 and 30th June 2018, from the Philips system. All discharge summaries from the PICU Philips system were reviewed. Only paediatric cardiac patients were included that had a heparin infusion prescribed on discharge, all other discharge summaries were excluded from the study. Each discharge summary was reviewed in the anticoagulant section; for the heparin regimen chosen, whether it complies with the hospital’s anticoagulant guidelines and if there was any deviation whether this was documented. The indication documented of which heparin regimen was chosen and whether a clear long term plan was documented after heparin cessation; for example if the patient is to be transferred onto aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin or enoxaparin.Results82 discharge summaries were reviewed over the 6 month period between 1st January 2018 and 30th June 2018; 16 were excluded as were not paediatric cardiac, leaving 66 paediatric cardiac discharge summaries that were reviewed. 45 out of 66 (68%) complied with the hospital’s heparin anticoagulation guidelines. Of the 32% that deviated from the protocol; only 33% (7 out of 21) had a reason documented. Only 50% (33) of the summaries reviewed had an indication for anticoagulation noted on the discharge summary and 91% of discharge summaries had a long term anticoagulant plan documented.ConclusionThe electronic prescribing system can help to ensure a clear anticoagulation communication as shown by 91% of the anticoagulation long term plan being clearly documented; making it a more seamless patient transfer. On the Philips PICU electronic prescribing system there is an anticoagulant section on the discharge summary that has 3 boxes that need to be completed; heparin regimen, indication and anticoagulation long term plan. However, despite these boxes; deviations from the anticoagulant protocol were poorly documented as highlighted by only 33% having the reason highlighted in the discharge summary, only 50% of the indications were documented. Despite having prompts for this information on the discharge summary, the medical staffs needs to be aware to complete this information, in order to reduce potential medication errors and risk.ReferenceThe National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA). Actions that make anticoagulant therapy safer. NPSA; March 2007.


2007 ◽  
Vol 136 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
D. Cousins ◽  
D. M. Keeling ◽  
D. J. Perry ◽  
H. G. Watson

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 341 (jul06 2) ◽  
pp. c3402-c3402 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Lamont ◽  
T. Coates ◽  
D. Mathew ◽  
J. Scarpello ◽  
A. Slater

Author(s):  
Graham Brack ◽  
Penny Franklin ◽  
Jill Caldwell

Most healthcare professionals take up their career because they want to make people better. It is rare—but not unknown—to find nurses deliberately harming patients. It is not always possible to cure a patient’s condition, and readers may be surprised to hear the view of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith that our ‘only duty as a matter of law is not to make the victim’s condition worse’ (Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire CC (1997) 2 All ER 865 at 883). Despite our best intentions, healthcare professionals do sometimes make the patient’s condition worse. There are too many instances of harm caused to patients. Not only does the patient suffer harm, staff will be upset (some may even give up their careers) and large compensation claims may be made which deplete NHS resources. According to the NHS Litigation Authority, in 2010–11 it received 8655 claims of clinical negligence and 4346 claims of non-clinical negligence against NHS bodies, and paid £863 million in connection with clinical negligence claims (NHSLA Annual Report and Accounts, 2011). To put that into perspective, NHS Warwickshire had a budget of £827m for that year, so this amount would fund a mediumsized PCT. For all these reasons, therefore, our first concern must be to do no harm to our patient. If we can improve their condition, so much the better, but at the very least we must leave them no worse off for having put themselves in our care. Patient safety must be everyone’s concern. It is monitored by the NHS Commissioning Board Special Health Authority. Until June 2012 there was a separate agency, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA), which produced a report in 2009 entitled Safety in doses: improving the use of medicines in the NHS . There were 811 746 reports to the NPSA in 2007, of which 86 085 were related to medication. The figures for July 2010– June 2011 show an increase to 1.27 million incidents, of which 133 727 were related to medication.


2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. e12.2-e13
Author(s):  
Jenny Gray ◽  
Susie Gage

IntroductionIntravenous (IV) maintenance fluids are often prescribed post-surgery when enteral routes are contraindicated. Serious consequences have been documented when poor fluid management has occurred, as highlighted in the National Patient Safety Alert (NPSA) 22; reducing the risk of hyponatraemia; when administering IV fluids to children.1 In response to this, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published their guidance in December 2015 regarding IV fluids in children.2 Based on NICE recommendations, a pan hospital fluid guidance was produced. Within the NICE and hospital’s own guideline it states that there should be a daily fluid management plan documented. It has been well recognised that this daily fluid management plan was not routinely been completed; hence showing non-adherence to our hospital policy and NICE recommendations.AimsPrimary aim was to improve the documentation of the daily fluid management plan; aimed at the medical staff and the secondary aim was to improve the monitoring requirements of IV fluids and documentation of these; largely aimed at the nursing staff.MethodsA simple sticker was designed and attached to continuous sheets for medical notes which had a checklist of monitoring requirements and a section for fluid balance. Additionally, 2 posters were produced; one aimed at medical staff for documenting a fluid management plan and one aimed at the nursing staff with the monitoring requirements. These posters were displayed on the paediatric surgical ward.ResultsA total of 22 patients who were prescribed IV fluids were identified for a baseline measurement, an equal number of patients were compared after the intervention. Neonates and children receiving total parenteral nutrition were excluded from the data collection. There were 41% of daily fluid management plans completed pre intervention and post intervention there were 56% completed; showing a 15% increase in completion. As regards the monitoring indications; there were increases for nursing fluid balance completed from 19% to 46%, blood glucose taken and recorded from 64% to 83% and the daily weight documented from 10% to 49%.ConclusionsThis short QI project shows that implementation of an intervention did improve outcomes across all indications investigated. The results are not as dramatic as first hoped, but this is largely due to the short time scale of 4 weeks to introduce our change and it coincided with the change-over month of junior medical staff. With further education and champions within the medical and nursing teams; further improvement is very much possible, with the main aim in reducing risk and improving patient safety.ReferencesNational Patient Safety Alert: Reducing the risk of hyponatraemia when administering intravenous infusions to neonates 2007. Available at https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/npsa-alert-reducing-the-risk-of-hyponatraemia-when-administering-intraveneous-infusions-to-neonates/ [Accessed 12th June 2019]NICE guidance: Intravenous fluid therapy in children and young people in hospital. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng29 [Accessed 12th June 2019]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document