Impact of smart infusion technology on administration of anticoagulants (unfractionated Heparin, Argatroban, Lepirudin, and Bivalirudin).

This study reviewed 863 alerts generated from the infusion of anticoagulants in 355 patients from October 2003 to January 2005. Alerts were generated by smart infusion technology pumps and recorded in the devices' memory. The most common alerts were underdose alerts (59.8%), followed by overdose alerts (31.3%) and duplicate drug therapy alerts (8.9%). In response to the alerts, users' most frequent action was to cancel (46.5%) or reprogram (43.1%) the infusions. The highest percentage of alerts occurred from 2 to 4 p.m. During the study, there were 4 infusion rate errors, compared with 15 in the immediately preceding 16-month period. In conclusion, smart infusion technology intercepted keypad entry errors, thereby reducing the likelihood of intravenous anticoagulant overdose or underdose. Dose or infusion rate programming during intravenous anticoagulation is an important targets for medication safety interventions.

Intravenous medication safety and smart infusion systems: lessons learned and future opportunities.

The Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human: Building a Safe Health System greatly increased national awareness of the need to improve patient safety in general and medication safety in particular. Infusion-related errors are associated with the greatest risk of harm, and "smart" (computerized) infusion systems are currently available that can avert high-risk errors and provide previously unavailable data for continuous quality improvement (CQI) efforts. As healthcare organizations consider how to invest scarce dollars, infusion nurses have a key role to play in assessing need, evaluating technology, and selecting and implementing specific products. This article reviews the need to improve intravenous medication safety. It describes smart infusion systems and the results they have achieved. Finally, it details the lessons learned and the opportunities identified through the use of smart infusion technology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Thresholds of physical activity and life expectancy for patients considering destination ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Current implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve survival and function for patients with very late stage heart failure (HF) but may also offer benefit before inotrope dependence. Debate continues about selection of HF patients for LVAD therapy. We sought to determine what level of personal risk and disability HF patients thought would warrant LVAD therapy. METHODS: The study included 105 patients with symptomatic HF and an LV ejection fraction (EF) < 35% who were given a written paragraph about LVADs and asked about circumstances under which they would consider such a device. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, time trade-off utility, and patient-assessed functional score were determined. RESULTS: Participants (mean age, 58 years) had an LVEF of 21%. The median duration of HF was 5 years, and 65% had a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Presented with a scenario of bed-ridden HF, 81% stated they would definitely or probably want an LVAD; 50% would consider LVAD to prolong survival if HF survival were predicted to be < 1 year and 75% if < 6 months. Meanwhile, 44% would consider LVAD if they could only walk < 1 block and 64% if they could not dress without stopping. Anticipated thresholds did not differ by NYHA class, time trade-off, or functional score. CONCLUSIONS: Patient thresholds for LVAD insertion parallel objective survival and functional data. HF patients would be receptive to referral for discussion of LVAD by the time expected mortality is within 6 to 12 months and activity remains limited to less than 1 block.