Impact of smart pump-electronic health record interoperability on patient safety and finances at a community hospital

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Integrating smart pumps with an electronic health record (EHR) reduces medication errors by automating pump programming and EHR documentation. This study describes the patient safety and financial impact of pump-EHR interoperability at a community hospital. Methods A 316-bed community hospital in Sugar Land, TX, went live with pump-EHR interoperability in October 2019. Data were collected from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2019 (before implementation) and from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020 (after implementation). Rates of drug library compliance, alert firing, alert override, override within 2 seconds, high-risk alert override, and alert resulting in pump reprogramming were measured. Financial impact was measured by Current Procedural Terminology code capture per kept appointment in the infusion center. Results Drug library compliance increased from 73.8% to 82.9% with pump-EHR interoperability (P < 0.001). Infusions generating alerts among all infusions programmed with the drug library decreased from 3.5% to 2.6% (P < 0.001), overridden alerts increased from 64.8% to 68.9% (P < 0.001), alerts overridden within 2 seconds decreased from 17.3% to 13.8% (P < 0.001), and reprogrammed alerts decreased from 20.7% to 18.3% (P = 0.002). Conclusion Pump-EHR interoperability leads to safer administration of intravenous medications based on improved drug library compliance and more accurate smart pump programming.

Extending tubing to place intravenous smart pumps outside of patient rooms during COVID-19: an innovation that increases medication dead volume and risk to patients

The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched hospitals to capacity with highly contagious patients. Acute care hospitals around the world have needed to develop ways to conserve dwindling supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) while front-line clinicians struggle to reduce risk of exposure. By placing intravenous smart pumps (IVSP) outside patient rooms, nurses can more quickly attend to alarms, rate adjustments and bag changes with reduced personal risk and without the delay of donning necessary PPE to enter the room. The lengthy tubing required to place IVSP outside of patient rooms comes with important clinical implications which increase the risk to patient safety for the already error-prone intravenous medication administration process. This article focuses on the implications of increasing medication dead volume as intravenous tubing lengths increase. The use of extended intravenous tubing will lead to higher medication volumes held in the tubing which comes with significant safety implications related to unintended alterations in drug delivery. Safe intravenous medication administration is a collaborative responsibility across the team of nurses, pharmacists and ordering providers. This article discusses the importance and safety implications for each role when dead volume is increased due to IVSP placement outside of patient rooms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

P19 Direct observational study of infusion errors associated with smart-pump technology in paediatric intensive care

AimsProcesses for delivery of high-risk infusions in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are complex. Standard concentration infusions (SCIs), smart-pumps and electronic prescribing are recommended medication error reduction strategies.1 2 Implementation rates are low in Irish and UK hospitals.2 3 Since 2012, the PICU of an Irish tertiary paediatric hospital has been using a smart-pump SCI library, interfaced with electronic infusion orders (Philips ICCA®). The incidence of infusion errors is unknown. This study aims to determine the frequency, severity and distribution of smart-pump infusion errors and to identify contributory factors to the occurrence of infusion errors.MethodsProgrammed infusions are directly observed at the bedside. Parameters are compared against medication orders and auto-populated infusion data. Identified deviations are categorised as either medication errors or discrepancies. Five opportunities for error (OEs) were identified: programming, administration, documentation, assignment, data transfer. Error rates (%) are calculated as: infusions with errors; and errors per OE. Pre-defined definitions, multi-disciplinary consensus and grading processes are employed.ResultsA total of 1023 infusions for 175 patients were directly observed on 27 days between February and September 2017. 74% of patients were under 1 year, 32% under 1 month. The drug-library accommodated 96.5% of all infusions. Compliance with the drug-library was 98.9%. 55 infusions had ≥ 1 error (5.4%); a further 67 (6.3%) had ≥ 1 discrepancy. From a total of 4997 OEs, 72 errors (1.4%) and 107 discrepancies (2.1%) were observed. Documentation errors were most common; programming errors were rare (0.32% OE). Errors are minor, with just one requiring minimal intervention to prevent harm.ConclusionThis study has highlighted the benefits of smart-pumps and auto-populated infusion data in the PICU setting. Identified error rates are low compared to similar studies.4 The findings will contribute to the limited existing knowledge base on impact of these interventions on paediatric infusion administration errors.ReferencesInstitute for Safe Medication Practices, ISMP. 2018–2019 Targeted medication safety best practices for hospitals2018 [Available from: http://www.ismp.org/tools/bestpractices/TMSBP-for-Hospitalsv2.pdf [Accessed: June 2019]Oskarsdottir T, Harris D, Sutherland A, et al. A national scoping survey of standard infusions in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom. J Pharm Pharmacol 2018;70:1324–1331.Howlett M, Curtin M, Doherty D, Gleeson P, Sheerin M, Breatnach C. Paediatric standardised concentration infusions – A national solution. Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:e2.Blandford A, Dykes PC, Franklin BD, et al. Intravenous Infusion Administration: A comparative study of practices and errors between the United States and England and their Implications for patient safety. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1157–1165

Direct Observational Study of Interfaced Smart-Pumps in Pediatric Intensive Care

Background Processes for delivery of high-risk infusions in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are complex. Standard concentration infusions (SCIs), smart-pumps, and electronic prescribing are recommended medication error reduction strategies. Implementation rates in Europe lag behind those in the United States. Since 2012, the PICU of an Irish tertiary pediatric hospital has been using a smart-pump SCI library, interfaced with electronic infusion orders (Philips ICCA). The incidence of infusion errors is unknown. Objectives To determine the frequency, severity, and distribution of smart-pump infusion errors in PICUs. Methods Programmed infusions were directly observed at the bedside. Parameters were compared against medication orders and autodocumented infusion data. Identified deviations were categorized as medication errors or discrepancies. Error rates (%) were calculated as infusions with errors and errors per opportunities for error (OEs). Predefined definitions, multidisciplinary consensus and grading processes were employed. Results A total of 1,023 infusions for 175 patients were directly observed over 27 days between February and September 2017. The drug library accommodated 96.5% of infusions. Compliance with the drug library was 98.9%. A total of 133 infusions had ≥1 error (13.0%); a further 58 (5.7%) had ≥1 discrepancy. From a total of 4,997 OEs, 153 errors (3.1%) and 107 discrepancies (2.1%) were observed. Undocumented bolus doses were most commonly identified (n = 81); this was the only deviation in 36.1% (n = 69) of infusions. Programming errors were rare (0.32% OE). Errors were minor, with just one requiring minimal intervention to prevent harm. Conclusion The error rates identified are low compared with similar studies, highlighting the benefits of smart-pumps and autodocumented infusion data in PICUs. A range of quality improvement opportunities has been identified.

Intravenous infusion practices across England and their impact on patient safety: a mixed-methods observational study

Background Intravenous (IV) medication administration has traditionally been regarded to be error-prone with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed surprisingly few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. Objectives To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation in errors, discrepancies and practices, including the contribution of smart pumps. Design Phase 1 comprised an observational point-prevalence study of IV infusions, with debrief interviews and focus groups. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as either errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs, and analytically in supplementary analyses. Phase 2 comprised in-depth observational studies at five of the participating sites to better understand causes of error and how safety is maintained. Workshops were held with key stakeholder groups, including health professionals and policy-makers, the public and industry. Setting Sixteen English NHS hospital trusts. Results Point-prevalence data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. In total, 240 errors were observed in 231 infusions and 1489 discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions. Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; one might have resulted in short-term patient harm had it not been intercepted, but none was judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of deviations varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or to respond to patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect. Staff had developed practices to manage efficiency and safety pragmatically by working around systemic challenges. Limitations Local observers may have assessed errors differently across sites, although steps were taken to minimise differences through observer training, debriefs, and review and cleaning of data. Each in-depth study involved a single researcher, and these were limited in scale and scope. Conclusions Errors and discrepancies are common in everyday infusion administration but most have low potential for patient harm. Findings are best understood by viewing IV infusion administration as a complex adaptive system. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be more helpful for improving patient safety than striving to eliminate all deviations. Future work There is potential value in reviewing policy around IV infusion administration to reduce unnecessary variability, manage staff workload and engage patients, while retaining the principle that policy has to be fit for purpose, contextualised to the particular ward situation and treatment protocol, and sensitive to the risks of different medications. Further work on understanding infusion administration as a complex adaptive system might deliver new insights into managing patient safety. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Smart pumps improve medication safety but increase alert burden in neonatal care

Background Smart pumps have been widely adopted but there is limited evidence to understand and support their use in pediatric populations. Our objective was to assess whether smart pumps are effective at reducing medication errors in the neonatal population and determine whether they are a source of alert burden and alert fatigue in an intensive care environment. Methods Using smart pump records, over 370,000 infusion starts for continuously infused medications used in neonates and infants hospitalized in a level IV NICU from 2014 to 2016 were evaluated. Attempts to exceed preset soft and hard maximum limits, percent variance from those limits, and pump alert frequency, patterns and salience were evaluated. Results Smart pumps prevented 160 attempts to exceed the hard maximum limit for doses that were as high as 7–29 times the maximum dose and resulted in the reprogramming or cancellation of 2093 infusions after soft maximum alerts. While the overall alert burden from smart pumps for continuous infusions was not high, alerts clustered around specific patients and medications, and a small portion (17%) of infusions generated the majority of alerts. Soft maximum alerts were often overridden (79%), consistent with low alert salience. Conclusions Smart pumps have the ability to improve neonatal medication safety when compliance with dose error reducing software is high. Numerous attempts to administer high doses were intercepted by dosing alerts. Clustered alerts may generate a high alert burden and limit safety benefit by desensitizing providers to alerts. Future efforts should address ways to improve alert salience.