Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings

• Verfasst von: Hedlund, Nancy G. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hoppe-Tichy, Torsten [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings
• Verf.angabe: Nancy Hedlund, Idal Beer, Torsten Hoppe-Tichy, Patricia Trbovich
• Jahr: 2017
• Umfang: 15 S.
• Teil: volume:7
• Teil: year:2017
• Teil: number:12
• Teil: elocationid:e015912
• Teil: extent:15
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 23.10.2018
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: BMJ open
• Ort Quelle: London : BMJ Publishing Group, 2011
• Jahr Quelle: 2017
• Band/Heft Quelle: 7(2017), 12, Artikel-ID e015912
• ISSN Quelle: 2044-6055
• DOI: doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015912
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1582224412

Abstract

Objective  To examine published evidence on intravenous admixture preparation errors (IAPEs) in healthcare settings. Methods  Searches were conducted in three electronic databases (January 2005 to April 2017). Publications reporting rates of IAPEs and error types were reviewed and categorised into the following groups: component errors, dose/calculation errors, aseptic technique errors and composite errors. The methodological rigour of each study was assessed using the Hawker method. Results  Of the 34 articles that met inclusion criteria, 28 reported the site of IAPEs: central pharmacies (n=8), nursing wards (n=14), both settings (n=4) and other sites (n=3). Using the Hawker criteria, 14% of the articles were of good quality, 74% were of fair quality and 12% were of poor quality. Error types and reported rates varied substantially, including wrong drug (~0% to 4.7%), wrong diluent solution (0% to 49.0%), wrong label (0% to 99.0%), wrong dose (0% to 32.6%), wrong concentration (0.3% to 88.6%), wrong diluent volume (0.06% to 49.0%) and inadequate aseptic technique (0% to 92.7%)%). Four studies directly compared incidence by preparation site and/or method, finding error incidence to be lower for doses prepared within a central pharmacy versus the nursing ward and lower for automated preparation versus manual preparation. Although eight studies (24%) reported ≥1 errors with the potential to cause patient harm, no study directly linked IAPE occurrences to specific adverse patient outcomes. Conclusions  The available data suggest a need to continue to optimise the intravenous preparation process, focus on improving preparation workflow, design and implement preventive strategies, train staff on optimal admixture protocols and implement standardisation. Future research should focus on the development of consistent error subtype definitions, standardised reporting methodology and reliable, reproducible methods to track and link risk factors with the burden of harm associated with these errors.