Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study of policy and practice across 16 hospital trusts in England.

BACKGROUND: Procedural and documentation deviations relating to intravenous (IV) infusion administration can have important safety consequences. However, research on such deviations is limited. To address this we investigated the prevalence of procedural and documentation deviations in IV infusion administration and explored variability in policy and practice across different hospital trusts. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study. This involved observations of deviations from local policy including quantitative and qualitative data, and focus groups with clinical staff to explore the causes and contexts of deviations. The observations were conducted across five clinical areas (general medicine, general surgery, critical care, paediatrics and oncology day care) in 16 National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. All infusions being administered at the time of data collection were included. Deviation rates for procedural and documentation requirements were compared between trusts. Local data collectors and other relevant stakeholders attended focus groups at each trust. Policy details and reasons for deviations were discussed. RESULTS: At least one procedural or documentation deviation was observed in 961 of 2008 IV infusions (deviation rate 47.9%; 95% confidence interval 45.5-49.8%). Deviation rates at individual trusts ranged from 9.9 to 100% of infusions, with considerable variation in the prevalence of different types of deviation. Focus groups revealed lack of policy awareness, ambiguous policies, safety and practicality concerns, different organisational priorities, and wide variation in policies and practice relating to prescribing and administration of IV flushes and double-checking. CONCLUSIONS: Deviation rates and procedural and documentation requirements varied considerably between hospital trusts. Our findings reveal areas where local policy and practice do not align. Some policies may be impractical and lack utility. We suggest clearer evidence-based standardisation and local procedures that are contextually practical to address these issues.

Nurses' Experiences of Patients with Substance-Use Disorder in Pain: A Phenomenological Study.

Patients with substance-use disorder and pain are at risk of having their pain underestimated and undertreated. Unrelieved pain can exacerbate characteristics that are believed to be 'drug-seeking' and in turn, perceived drug-seeking behavior can contribute to a patient being stigmatized and labeled 'difficult'. Previous literature has indicated that negative attitudes towards patients with substance-use disorder may affect their pain management but little is known about the specific barriers. This study explored nurses' experiences of working with patients with substance-use disorder in pain, providing an in-depth insight into their perspective. Descriptive phenomenology was employed as a framework for conducting semi-structured interviews to reveal the experiences of registered nurses. A convenience sample of registered nurses from a variety of clinical backgrounds were recruited and interviewed. This rich data was analyzed according to Giorgi's five-stage approach. Participants described feelings of powerlessness and frustration due to patient non-compliance, discrepancies in patient management amongst team members and external pressures effecting pain management. Participants described characteristics believed to be common, including psychosocial factors such as complex social backgrounds or mental health issues. Nurses' education and support needs were identified. Stereotyping and stigmatism were found to potentially still exist, yet there was also a general awareness of some specific clinical issues such as opioid tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Further emphasis is required on interprofessional education and communication to improve patient management, alongside an appreciation of patient's rights facilitated by a concordance model of care.

Pain: a quality of care issue during patients' admission to hospital.

AIM: To determine the extent of clinically significant pain suffered by hospitalized patients during their stay and at discharge. BACKGROUND: The management of pain in hospitals continues to be problematic, despite long-standing awareness of the problem and improvements, e.g. acute pain teams and patient-controlled analgesia, epidural analgesia. Poorly managed pain, especially acute pain, often leads to adverse physical and psychological outcomes including persistent pain and disability. A systems approach may improve the management of pain in hospitals. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional exploratory design. METHOD: A large electronic pain score database of vital signs and pain scores was interrogated between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2010 to establish the proportion of hospital inpatient stays with clinically significant pain during the hospital stay and at discharge. FINDINGS: A total of 810,774 pain scores were analysed, representing 38,451 patient stays. Clinically significant pain was present in 38·4% of patient stays. Across surgical categories, 54·0% of emergency admissions experienced clinically significant pain, compared with 48·0% of elective admissions. Medical areas had a summary figure of 26·5%. For 30% patients, clinically significant pain was followed by a consecutive clinically significant pain score. Only 0·2% of pain assessments were made independently of vital signs. CONCLUSION: Reducing the risk of long-term persistent pain should be seen as integral to improving patient safety and can be achieved by harnessing organizational pain management processes with quality improvement initiatives. The assessment of pain alongside vital signs should be reviewed. Setting quality targets for pain are essential for improving the patient's experience.

The Potential Role of Smart Infusion Devices in Preventing or Contributing to Medication Administration Errors: A Descriptive Study of 2 Data Sets.

OBJECTIVES: Errors in medication administration are common, with many interventions suggested to reduce them. For intravenous infusion-related errors, "smart infusion devices" incorporating dose error reduction software are widely advocated. Our aim was to explore the role of smart infusion devices in preventing or contributing to medication administration errors using retrospective review of 2 complementary data sets that collectively included a wide range of errors with different levels of actual or potential harm. METHODS: We reviewed 216 medication administration errors identified from an observational study in clinical practice and 123 medication incidents involving infusion devices reported to a national reporting system. The impact of smart infusion devices in preventing or contributing to these errors was assessed by the research team and an expert panel. RESULTS: The data suggest that use of any infusion device rather than gravitational administration may have prevented 13% of observed errors and 8% of reported incidents; additional reductions may be possible with standalone smart infusion devices, and further potential reductions with smart infusion devices integrated with electronic prescribing and barcode administration systems. An estimated 52% to 73% of errors that occurred with traditional infusion pumps could be prevented with such integrated smart infusion devices. In the few cases where smart infusion devices were used, these contributed to errors in 2 of 58 observed errors and 7 of 8 reported incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Smart infusion devices not only prevent some medication administration errors but can also contribute to them. Further evaluation of such systems is required to make recommendations for policy and practice.

European* clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 1: Role of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance. SIGNIFICANCE: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

European clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 2: Special situations.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis). CONCLUSION: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. SIGNIFICANCE: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations.

Use of ketamine in uncontrolled acute and procedural pain.

This article explores the role of ketamine in pain management. Ketamine is an analgesic used to treat uncontrolled acute and procedural pain. It has protective properties and can prevent patients from developing persistent pain. In sub-anaesthetic analgesic doses, ketamine is a safe drug and produces minimal side effects.

'You wouldn't do that to an animal, would you?' Ethical issues in managing pain in patients with substance dependence.

In this article, we present a secondary analysis of a descriptive phenomenological study that we conducted in the United Kingdom exploring nurses' experiences of working with patients with substance dependence and pain. Our aim was to focus upon the ethical issues that emerged in the empirical data and so we used the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics plus attention to scope to guide and inform our analysis. We present six key themes: trust, paternalism, coercion, failure to respect autonomy, advocacy and withholding. We discuss how these themes intersect with the four principles plus scope to illuminate practice and the ethical issues that emerge when managing this patient population's pain. We recommend that clinicians adopt a collaborative approach to managing pain for patients with substance dependence that they remain aware of the power differentials inherent within the clinical setting and ensure that communication and teamwork remain at the forefront of decisions. Clinicians need access to ethical guidance to inform their practice decisions and clinical ethics support services could provide one solution.

Ketamine infusion for 96 hr after thoracotomy: Effects on acute and persistent pain.

INTRODUCTION: Pain which persists after thoracotomy is well recognized, and activation of the N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor could be a contributing factor. This study sought to establish whether ketamine given peri-operatively could reduce persistent post-surgical pain. TRIAL DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing low-dose intravenous ketamine and saline placebo. METHODS: Seventy patients undergoing thoracotomy were randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (0.1 mg kg-1  hr-1 ) or saline placebo for 96 hr, starting 10 min prior to surgery. A bolus dose of 0.1 mg/kg of ketamine/placebo was given prior to starting the infusion. Post-operative analgesia consisted of either an epidural infusion or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), +/- a paravertebral infusion of local anaesthetic. Pain scores and opioid consumption were collected at 24 and 48 hr after surgery. Patients completed numeric pain scores (NPS), modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the short form Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-Lanss) at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in post-operative pain, except the ketamine group reported less pain at rest 48 hr after surgery (p = 0.03). The ketamine group requested significantly less morphine via PCA in the first 24 hr (p = 0.03). There were no differences in pain measures or opioid consumption at 6 weeks, 3, 6 or 12 months. Patients in the ketamine group were more lightheaded (p = 0.02) and experienced more vivid dreams (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine reduced opioid consumption compared to placebo after surgery, but we were unable to detect any differences in persistent post-surgical pain between the groups. SIGNIFICANCE: This study adds to the growing body of evidence advocating the use of ketamine to reduce opioid consumption. No previous studies of peri-operative ketamine have followed patients for a year after thoracotomy. This study found no reduction in persistent post-surgical pain.

Errors and discrepancies in the administration of intravenous infusions: a mixed methods multihospital observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous medication administration has traditionally been regarded as error prone, with high potential for harm. A recent US multisite study revealed few potentially harmful errors despite a high overall error rate. However, there is limited evidence about infusion practices in England and how they relate to prevalence and types of error. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, types and severity of errors and discrepancies in infusion administration in English hospitals, and to explore sources of variation, including the contribution of smart pumps. METHODS: We conducted an observational point prevalence study of intravenous infusions in 16 National Health Service hospital trusts. Observers compared each infusion against the medication order and local policy. Deviations were classified as errors or discrepancies based on their potential for patient harm. Contextual issues and reasons for deviations were explored qualitatively during observer debriefs. RESULTS: Data were collected from 1326 patients and 2008 infusions. Errors were observed in 231 infusions (11.5%, 95% CI 10.2% to 13.0%). Discrepancies were observed in 1065 infusions (53.0%, 95% CI 50.8% to 55.2%). Twenty-three errors (1.1% of all infusions) were considered potentially harmful; none were judged likely to prolong hospital stay or result in long-term harm. Types and prevalence of errors and discrepancies varied widely among trusts, as did local policies. Deviations from medication orders and local policies were sometimes made for efficiency or patient need. Smart pumps, as currently implemented, had little effect, with similar error rates observed in infusions delivered with and without a smart pump (10.3% vs 10.8%, p=0.8). CONCLUSION: Errors and discrepancies are relatively common in everyday infusion administrations but most have low potential for patient harm. Better understanding of performance variability to strategically manage risk may be a more helpful tactic than striving to eliminate all deviations.

Patient-controlled analgesia: what information does the patient want?

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To formulate and evaluate an information leaflet for patients using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), incorporating information thought to be important by patients. RATIONALE: The benefit of current information leaflets, written by professionals, has not been studied and their value to patients is unknown. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that information leaflets were poorly designed and written in language too difficult for patients to understand. RESEARCH METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted to establish what information patients wanted to know about PCA. This information was incorporated into a new information leaflet. One hundred patients were randomized to receive either the new leaflet or the old leaflet in current use. A questionnaire was used to establish whether the new leaflet was more clear and informative than the old one. RESULTS: Patients wanted to know that the drug used in PCA was morphine. They wanted more information about side-effects, needed to be reassured that it was safe, and that they could not overdose or become addicted. They wanted detailed instructions and diagrams about the technique. The questionnaire study established that the new leaflet was clearer and more informative. CONCLUSION: Patients' contribution led to major change, producing a leaflet which was clearer, more attractive, more informative and which proved more satisfactory to patients.