Review of venom immunotherapy at a regional tertiary paediatric centre.

AIM: Bee stings can result in allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a definitive cure for bee venom allergy, but controversy surrounds whether accelerated protocols are safe in children. Our primary aim was to assess the safety profile of ultra-rush bee VIT compared with conventional bee VIT at a regional paediatric tertiary centre. We also sought to evaluate the impact of both approaches on time and resource use. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 14 patients with bee venom allergy who were treated with ultra-rush or conventional bee VIT between 2013 and 2021 at John Hunter Children's Hospital. We compared VIT-associated adverse reactions and use of resources in both these groups. RESULTS: Overall, six patients received ultra-rush bee VIT and eight patients received conventional VIT. The ultra-rush group had a lower rate of systemic reaction (16%) compared with the conventional group (25%). One patient from the conventional group required adrenaline. Ultra-rush patients require fewer injections over a shorter time and fewer hospital visits to complete the protocol. Travel distance for families was significantly reduced. CONCLUSION: At our regional paediatric tertiary centre, ultra-rush bee VIT was a safe treatment option for children with bee venom allergy. It has many advantages over a conventional approach, especially for patients living in regional or remote areas.

Reporting medication errors through computerized medication administration.

The incidence of medication errors has risen dramatically during the last decade to an alarming number. Nurses report only 5% of significant errors, those considered life threatening. Little research has been done related to medication errors at the administration stage or reporting methods. The purpose of this study was to compare medication error rate per 1,000 doses administered before and after the implementation of a bar code medication administration system. The study was conducted on two medical-surgical units at a midwest government hospital 12 months both before and after the implementation of the Bar Code Medication Administration system. The medication error rate per 1,000 doses administered by a nurse after implementation of the Bar Code Medication Administration system showed an 18% increase. The results probably do not indicate an increase in medication errors but rather an increase in the number of medication errors reported. This research highlights problems with programs evaluating medication errors and new technology implementation. Evaluators must have accurate baseline data before implementation. Past research has shown that the medication error rate has been underreported. In contrast to a staff reporting system, the computerization of medication administration improves the reporting system by reporting all errors. Once a more accurate error rate is known, new technology can be created, evaluated, and refined to reduce medication errors.