Genetic polymorphisms of heme-oxygenase 1 (HO-1) may impact on acute kidney injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and mortality in premature infants.

BACKGROUND: Heme oxygenase 1 (HO1) catalyzes heme degradation, and offers protection for several organs, including the kidney. Genetic polymorphisms of HO-1 are associated with poor clinical outcomes in several populations. POPULATION: We prospectively enrolled 117 premature infants (birth weight ≤1,200 g or postgestational age ≤31 wk) and evaluated two DNA genetic variants proximal to the promoter region of HO-1 (GT(n) repeats, and -413T>A SNP). We evaluated how these polymorphisms affect two clinical outcomes: (i) Acute Kidney Injury (AKI)-rise in serum creatinine (SCr) ≥ 0.3 mg/dl or ≥ 150-200% from lowest previous value, (ii) the composite of mortality and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) defined as receipt of oxygen at 36 wk postmenstrual age. RESULTS: AKI occurred in 34/117 (29%) of neonates; 12/117 (10%) died; 29/105 (28%) survivors had BPD. Neonates with TT genotype at 413T>A before the HO-1 promoter had higher rates of AKI (P < 0.05). There was no difference in number of GT(n) repeats and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: We did not find an association between the GT(n) tandem repeat of HO-1 and AKI nor BPD/mortality. However, infants with TT genotype of the 413T>A genetic alteration had lower incidence of AKI. Further studies using larger cohorts are needed to better understand these relationships.

UK Vessel Health and Preservation (VHP) Framework: a commentary on the updated VHP 2020.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, a UK vessel health and preservation (VHP) framework was developed to support healthcare staff to select the most appropriate vascular access device for patients requiring intravenous therapy. The VHP framework was based on available evidence and expert consensus. The VHP was based on available evidence and expert consensus. DEVELOPMENT OF THE VHP 2020 FRAMEWORK: A multidisciplinary team reviewed the original UK VHP framework and considered new published evidence, national and international guidelines and expert opinion. A literature search was performed using Cinahl and Medline, incorporating a variety of terms linked to vascular access devices, assessment and selection. Articles published in and after 2014 in English were included. Twelve articles were found to be relevant including three evidence-based guidelines, two randomised control trials and one systematic review. FINDINGS: Three main studies provided the evidence for the update: the MAGIC study that assessed the appropriateness of peripherally inserted central catheters in patients; a study that utilised the 'A-DIVA scale' to predict the likelihood of difficult venous access; and a study that incorporated an 'I-DECIDED tool' for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making for device removal. In addition, published guidelines provided evidence that the original advice on appropriate osmolarity of medicines for peripheral administration needed updating. CONCLUSION: The 2020 UK VHP framework reflects latest evidence-based research and guidelines, providing healthcare staff updated guidance to assist in maintaining good practice in vascular access assessment and device selection and patient safety.

The Injectable Medicines Guide Website.

National Patient Safety Agency Alert 20 (2007) requires that information on how to prepare and safely administer injectable medicines is available at the point of care. This article describes the development of the Injectable Medicines Guide website, which is recommended in Alert 20 as a suitable source of information. Historically, individual hospitals have produced local guidelines resulting in much duplication of effort. The website was developed by liaising with a large number of hospitals across the UK to produce standardized information on intravenous (IV) medicine administration. The website can be tailored to reflect local needs, which would include those sections that are absolutely essential for safe administration of the medicine; but access to the full monograph can still be easily obtained. In addition, organizations can link locally-produced IV medicine-related guidelines to individual monographs. For organizations that produce their own locally-prepared injectable medicines guide, it is possible to add it to the website in such a way that it can be viewed with an appropriate link in place to the Injectable Medicine Guide website monograph. The Intensive Care Society (2010) has issued a statement supporting the adoption of standard concentrations for 16 medications commonly used in critical care and the website is being updated to reflect this statement. Specialist mental health pharmacists are preparing monographs on medicines commonly administered by intramuscular (IM) injection in mental health practice. These are planned for release in the autumn of 2010. Currently, a robust source of funding is not available to underpin the production of the website. Appropriate funding would allow it to become universally available across the UK, without the need for password-protection. The website could then more easily become embedded in computerized prescribing systems.

Towards IV drug standardization in critical care.

Local infusion practice within critical care has evolved over time, and one example of this is the wide variation in concentrations of drug infusions within critical care. While there are many similarities between critical care units, there are also many differences. Often drug infusions are used outside their product licence and, because of the diversity in practice, manufacturers are unlikely to license multiple preparations of even the most commonly used infusions. Critical care nurses spend many hours every day preparing and administering intravenous infusions. Much time could be saved if the infusions were available as a ready-to-use solution. This would also reduce the risk of errors that occur during the preparation and administration of medication infusions. This article describes a national project to achieve consensus on the strengths of drug infusions used within UK critical care units. Having agreed on standard solutions, it is hoped that manufacturers will seek licences for commonly used infusions and work towards mass production of these products. Off the shelf, ready-to-use infusions of commonly used medications could become a reality.

Infusion medication concentrations in UK's critical care areas: Are the Intensive Care Society's recommendations being used?

Following two studies done in 2007 and 2009, a follow-up of the adherence to the suggested guidelines on drug standardisation has been performed with a suggestion for future standards that can be achieved, to complement the recently published Carter report. The Intensive Care Society (ICS) introduced recommendations for infusion concentrations of 16 medications commonly used in critical care areas. The importance being improvement in patient safety and rationalised use of available critical care resources. Five years after publication of these recommendations, a further audit has been undertaken to assess the level of acceptance and application. This revealed that 89.5% of the 133 surveyed units (representing 42.49% critical care units across the UK) have adopted the recommendations. There are further medication concentrations which could also be standardised.

A NATIONAL SURVEY TO IDENTIFY HOW DISPLACEMENT VALUE INFORMATION IS USED AND PRESENTED TO CLINICAL STAFF IN NHS HOSPITALS.

AIM: The use of displacement values (DVs) when preparing intravenous (IV) medication for children enables accurate doses to be given1 and is assumed to be common paediatric practice. This survey aimed to assess views of UK paediatric pharmacists on DVs in practice to explore:▸ How prevalent is DV use in the paediatric hospital setting▸ Which type of IV administration guidelines were being used▸ Which form of DV presentation is perceived to be most practical▸ Which method of calculation is preferred METHOD: A national cross-sectional survey study was undertaken. The questionnaire comprised of 13 closed and open questions as well as samples of how DVs are currently displayed on the Medusa Injectable Medicines Guide2. After piloting the questionnaire the survey was sent to 365 paediatric pharmacists across 120 UK hospitals utilising Qualtrics Survey Software. RESULTS: Fifty-five completed questionnaires covering 52 (43%) United Kingdom (UK) hospital trusts were received. Of 55 respondents, 52 (95%) reported the clinical significance of DVs in paediatric care. This was reflected in the fact that all local guides provided information on DVs. The majority (32;59%) used locally produced guides, while 15 (27%) of respondents used Medusa as a resource. All respondents commented on methods of presentation and calculation of DV information. Of four methods presented, the method involving presentation of reconstitution information in a brand-specific table was ranked as most practical (46;84% respondents). This method was viewed as being clear and concise. Respondents also expressed the importance of having this tabulated method visually embedded in the monograph to allow easy access to information on the wards. This concurs with suggested information presentation to aid error reduction in the literature.3 National standardisation of DV information was viewed as 'very useful' or 'preferred' by 52 (95%) of respondents; reasons for this preference were risk reduction due to errors or misinterpretation. CONCLUSION: The use of DVs in paediatrics is commonplace in the UK; this is reflected in local IV guides used by the majority of centres. Improving visual presentation of DVs is important and tabulated expression of DVs is preferred by pharmacists and a national standard presentation of DVs is encouraged. The results from the survey will inform the monograph layout for the Medusa. Prior to implementation nurse feedback should also be sought.