ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology is used to increase productivity and to improve performance, by eliminating processes that do not add value to the customer, as well as reducing variability. In recent years, its application in healthcare sector is increasing in order to improve the efficiency of processes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results obtained in terms of efficiency in the medication dispensing circuit, after application of LSS methodology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was created in order to analyse and improve the medication dispensing circuit. The main tools used in LSS methodology were the DMAIC cycle (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control), SIPOC diagram (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers), a root-cause analysis; a survey to determine the "Customer's voice" about the circuit; and the cost of each task in terms of staff time. Two Pilot Nursing Units (Thoracic Surgery and Cardiology) were selected to introduce the improvement actions. The main analysed variables were: urgent medication orders per day, and percentage of medication orders made online. RESULTS: After the application of LSS methodology, a significant reduction was found in urgent medicament orders per day in both nursing units, and a significant improvement in the electronic processing of urgent orders. The performance of medication dispensing circuit was increased from 60% (1.76 sigma) during initial data analysis, to 93% (3 sigma) in Thoracic Surgery, and from 71% (2.11 sigma) to 81% (2.4 sigma) in Cardiology. Six months after the implementation of improvements, the performance values were increased to 94% (3.1 sigma) and 93% (3 sigma), respectively. Estimated cost savings related to staff were 798.2 (266 per month) after implementation, ascending to 2, 228.5 (371.4 per month) after 6months. CONCLUSION: The use of LSS methodology has improved the performance of medication dispensing circuits, reducing costs in terms of staff time, and obtaining satisfactory results.
Subject(s)
Quality Improvement , Total Quality Management , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: our aim was to measure the osmolality of several PN formulas at different component concentrations to determine if equations described in literature to calculate osmolarity accurately predict osmolalality in other experimental conditions different than these used to develop them. METHODS: osmolality of 12 different types of PN solutions, 9 for central and 3 for peripheral perfusion were measured by using freezing point depression in cross-sectional study. We evaluated the agreement (Pearson correlation test) and differential bias between measured osmolality and calculated osmolarity for three different equations described in the literature: Pereira Da Silva, ASPEN Practice Manual and ASPEN guidelines. RESULTS: mean ± SD osmolality of PN solutions was 1789 ± 256 (range 1 540 - 2 372) and 751 ± 64 mOsm/kg (range 689 - 817) for central and peripheral infusion, respectively. The osmolality of PN formulations was mainly due to glucose (r = 0.975) and amino acids (r = 0.948). All studied equations had a good correlation in the bivariate analysis (p = 0.000). All equations had a trend to underestimate the osmolality compared with the measured value. However, ASPEN guidelines equation overestimated the osmolality for peripheral PN. CONCLUSIONS: measurement of osmolality of peripheral PN solutions is important to reduce the risk of phlebitis. The different equations described previously show a good correlation between them although in general underestimate the osmolality.
Objetivo: nuestro objetivo era medir la osmolaridad de varias fórmulas de nutrición parenteral (NP) compuestas por diferentes componentes para determinar si las ecuaciones para calcular la osmolaridad de la solución, descritas en la literatura, predicen su osmolalidad en la práctica clínica. Método: se midió mediante osmometría la osmolalidad de 12 fórmulas de NP diferentes: 9 para acceso venoso central y 3 para acceso periférico, en un estudio transversal. Se analizó el acuerdo (test de correlación de Pearson) y las diferencias entre la osmolalidad medida y la osmolaridad calculada mediante tres fórmulas diferentes: ecuación de Pereira Da Silva, ecuación del manual de práctica clínica de ASPEN y ecuación de las guías de ASPEN. Resultados: la media ± desviación estándar de las soluciones era 1.789 ± 256 (rango 1.540 2.372) y 751 ± 64 mOsm/kg (rango 689 817) para perfusión central y periférica, respectivamente. La osmolalidad era debida principalmente a la glucosa (r = 0,975) y a los aminoacidos (r = 0,948). Todas las ecuaciones presentaban una buena correlación en el análisis bivariante (p = 0,000). Todas las ecuaciones tendían a infraestimar la osmolalidad, en comparación con el valor medido. Sin embargo, la ecuación de las guías de la ASPEN sobreestimaba la osmolalidad de las NP periféricas. Conclusiones: conocer la osmolaridad de la solución de NP periférica es importante para reducir el riesgo de flebitis. Las diferentes ecuaciones descritas en la literatura muestran una buena correlación entre ellas, aunque en general infraestiman la osmolalidad.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Parenteral Nutrition Solutions/chemistry , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Osmolar Concentration , Parenteral NutritionABSTRACT
Background: our aim was to measure the osmolality of several PN formulas at different component concentrations to determine if equations described in literature to calculate osmolarity accurately predict osmolalality in other experimental conditions different than these used to develop them. Methods: osmolality of 12 different types of PN solutions, 9 for central and 3 for peripheral perfusion were measured by using freezing point depression in cross-sectional study. We evaluated the agreement (Pearson correlation test) and differential bias between measured osmolality and calculated osmolarity for three different equations described in the literature: Pereira Da Silva, ASPEN Practice Manual and ASPEN guidelines. Results: mean ± SD osmolality of PN solutions was 1789 ± 256 (range 1 540 - 2 372) and 751 ± 64 mOsm/kg (range 689 - 817) for central and peripheral infusion, respectively. The osmolality of PN formulations was mainly due to glucose (r = 0.975) and amino acids (r = 0.948). All studied equations had a good correlation in the bivariate analysis (p = 0.000). All equations had a trend to underestimate the osmolality compared with the measured value. However, ASPEN guidelines equation overestimated the osmolality for peripheral PN. Conclusions: measurement of osmolality of peripheral PN solutions is important to reduce the risk of phlebitis. The different equations described previously show a good correlation between them although in general underestimate the osmolality (AU)
Objetivo: nuestro objetivo era medir la osmolaridad de varias fórmulas de nutrición parenteral (NP) compuestas por diferentes componentes para determinar si las ecuaciones para calcular la osmolaridad de la solución, descritas en la literatura, predicen su osmolalidad en la práctica clínica. Método: se midió mediante osmometría la osmolalidad de 12 fórmulas de NP diferentes: 9 para acceso venoso central y 3 para acceso periférico, en un estudio transversal. Se analizó el acuerdo (test de correlación de Pearson) y las diferencias entre la osmolalidad medida y la osmolaridad calculada mediante tres fórmulas diferentes: ecuación de Pereira Da Silva, ecuación del manual de práctica clínica de ASPEN y ecuación de las guías de ASPEN. Resultados: la media ± desviación estándar de las soluciones era 1.789 ± 256 (rango 1.540 - 2.372) y 751 ± 64 mOsm/kg (rango 689 - 817) para perfusión central y periférica, respectivamente. La osmolalidad era debida principalmente a la glucosa (r = 0,975) y a los aminoacidos (r = 0,948). Todas las ecuaciones presentaban una buena correlación en el análisis bivariante (p = 0,000). Todas las ecuaciones tendían a infraestimar la osmolalidad, en comparación con el valor medido. Sin embargo, la ecuación de las guías de la ASPEN sobreestimaba la osmolalidad de las NP periféricas. Conclusiones: conocer la osmolaridad de la solución de NP periférica es importante para reducir el riesgo de flebitis. Las diferentes ecuaciones descritas en la literatura muestran una buena correlación entre ellas, aunque en general infraestiman la osmolalidad (AU)